Two ways to solve the same problem
Every business running a server ends up choosing, explicitly or by default, between two models: pay a managed hosting provider a flat recurring fee to handle the server layer, or run your own infrastructure and bring in sysadmin time as needed. Both are legitimate, and the right one depends less on cost and more on how much control you want over the specifics.
What 'managed' usually actually covers
Managed hosting plans vary widely in what 'managed' means. Some cover OS patching and little else, leaving application-level configuration, performance tuning, and anything outside their standard stack entirely on you. Others are genuinely full-service but restrict you to their supported software versions and configurations, trading flexibility for convenience. It's worth reading exactly what's included before assuming 'managed' means 'handled.'
What self-managed with hourly sysadmin support actually costs
Running your own server (bare metal, VPS, or cloud instance) and paying for sysadmin time as needed tends to cost less in months where nothing goes wrong, and more in a month with a migration or an incident. The tradeoff is you're not paying for capacity you're not using, and you're not limited to a host's supported stack. It requires being comfortable with variable monthly costs in exchange for flexibility and, usually, a lower baseline spend.
The real decision point
The deciding factor isn't usually price, both models land in a similar range once you account for what's actually included. It's whether you want a fixed, predictable bill for a standardized service, or lower baseline costs and full control over your stack in exchange for variable hours. Businesses running anything non-standard (a specific database version, custom application requirements, a particular compliance need) tend to outgrow managed hosting's constraints faster than they expect.