Most WAN decisions don’t fail because an organization picked the wrong technology. They fail because the organization picked the wrong operating model. Managed WAN and self-managed WAN are both viable. The question is which one fits how your network team is actually structured, what your IT budget covers, and how much control you need over day-to-day operations.
About two-thirds of enterprises with SD-WAN deployments use a fully managed or co-managed model - up from 62% in 2020. That’s a significant majority, but it doesn’t mean managed WAN is the right call for every organization.
This guide covers where managed WAN fits, where it creates problems, and what to weigh before committing.
What Managed WAN actually covers
With a managed WAN service, a third-party provider takes on the design, deployment, configuration, monitoring, and day-to-day maintenance of your wide area network. Your team defines requirements and reviews performance reports. The provider handles the rest, including hardware procurement, ISP coordination, troubleshooting, and software updates.
Co-managed models sit between fully managed and self-managed. The provider handles infrastructure and monitoring while the customer retains control over policy configuration and routing decisions. This matters for regulated industries or organizations with specific internal governance requirements around who can touch the network.
Pricing is typically subscription-based with no large upfront capital cost. The provider supplies the edge hardware, licenses the SD-WAN software, and bundles support into the monthly fee. Self-managed deployments require the organization to purchase and own that hardware and software directly, with ongoing staff time for maintenance.
Where Managed WAN works well
Organizations with limited internal network expertise
SD-WAN requires specialized skills to deploy and maintain correctly. Routing policies, traffic prioritization, security configurations, and ISP integrations all need ongoing attention. For organizations without dedicated network engineers or where the IT team covers a broad range of responsibilities, managed WAN removes the technical burden without removing visibility into network performance.
Rapid expansion across multiple sites
Bringing new locations onto a WAN under a self-managed model requires your team to source hardware, coordinate with local ISPs, configure edge devices, and test connectivity before each site goes live. Under a managed model, the provider handles that process. A healthcare organization opening 20 clinics in a quarter can bring each location online in days rather than weeks.
Zero-touch provisioning, where edge devices configure themselves automatically when connected, is standard on most managed SD-WAN platforms. That reduces the need for on-site technical staff at each new location.
Managing multiple ISPs across many sites
Each ISP relationship involves separate support contacts, SLA tracking, billing, contract renewals, and troubleshooting processes. Managing a handful of providers is workable. Managing dozens is not.
Research from Nemertes found that ISP aggregation and last-mile management is one of the primary reasons enterprises move to managed WAN, because the provider consolidates those relationships and takes on the coordination work.
Predictable budget requirements
Managed WAN converts capital expenditure on hardware into a predictable monthly operating cost. For finance teams managing network costs against an opex budget, that predictability has practical value. It also removes the cost exposure from hardware refresh cycles, which typically occur every three to five years under a self-managed model.
24/7 monitoring without building an internal NOC
Under a self-managed model, after-hours network issues fall to whoever is on call. Managed providers run 24/7 network operations centers that detect and respond to problems without requiring your team to be available around the clock. For organizations without a dedicated network operations function, this coverage is difficult to replicate internally at comparable cost.
Where Managed WAN creates problems
Organizations that need deep customization or control
Managed WAN providers standardize their configurations across their customer base. That makes deployment efficient, but it limits how far you can deviate from their
standard setup. Large enterprises with complex routing requirements, custom security policies, or specific integration needs with internal systems may find that a managed model doesn’t give them enough control over how the network is configured and maintained.
Financial services organizations and healthcare providers are common examples. They often need to run their own internal risk assessments, implement specific compliance controls at the network layer, and maintain direct oversight of every configuration change. A co-managed model can address some of this, but fully managed often falls short.
Organizations with strong internal network teams
Managed WAN makes most sense when the alternative is under-resourced management. For organizations with experienced network engineers who understand SD-WAN architecture well, managing the WAN internally gives them direct control over performance, faster response to issues, and the ability to optimize configurations without going through a provider. Over the long term, self-management can also cost less, since you’re not paying a provider margin on top of infrastructure costs.
Provider dependency and response time constraints
When something goes wrong on a managed WAN, your resolution speed depends on your provider’s support process, not your own team’s availability. For configuration changes, you submit a request and wait. For some organizations, that wait is acceptable. For others, particularly those running critical real-time applications or operating across time zones with tight SLA requirements, the loss of direct control over the network creates operational risk.
Vendor lock-in
Managed WAN contracts typically run two to three years and include provider-specific hardware and software. Switching providers mid-contract is expensive and disruptive. Organizations that are still testing which SD-WAN platform best fits their environment, or that expect significant changes to their network architecture in the near term, should be cautious about committing to a long-term managed service agreement.
Questions to work through before deciding
Before choosing between managed and self-managed WAN, your team should be able to answer the following:
-
Do we have the internal expertise to deploy, configure, and maintain SD-WAN at our current scale, and what happens if the people who know the network leave?
-
How many ISP relationships are we managing, and how much IT staff time goes into tracking SLAs, resolving disputes, and handling billing across those accounts?
-
What is our current after-hours coverage for network incidents, and what would it cost to improve it?
-
Does our compliance environment require us to retain direct control over network configuration, or can a co-managed model satisfy those requirements?
-
Are we planning significant site expansion in the next 12 to 24 months, and what does that deployment workload look like under each model?
-
What is the total cost of self-management when you include staff time, hardware ownership, and refresh cycles, versus the monthly cost of a managed contract?
Co-managed WAN as a practical middle ground
Many enterprises land on a co-managed model rather than a binary choice between fully managed and fully self-managed. Under co-management, the provider handles infrastructure, hardware, monitoring, and ISP coordination. The customer retains control over network policies, routing priorities, and security configurations.
This works well for organizations that have internal network engineers but want to reduce the operational overhead of managing hardware and ISP relationships. It also satisfies compliance requirements that mandate internal control over configuration decisions, since the customer retains policy ownership even though the provider manages the underlying infrastructure.
Co-managed contracts vary significantly in how they divide responsibilities between the provider and the customer. Before signing, document exactly which tasks sit with the provider and which stay with your team, including who has authority to make changes and how change requests are submitted and tracked.
How Pure IP supports managed and co-managed WAN decisions
Pure IP works with enterprise IT teams evaluating managed WAN options alongside their broader voice and connectivity strategy. We support organizations across both fully managed and co-managed models, and we work with customers who are migrating from legacy MPLS environments or managing networks across multiple regions with different connectivity requirements.
Talk to our team about how managed WAN fits into your current network architecture and what a transition would involve for your organization.
