It's an MTBF like calculation: do you trust the well engineered one person company that has a well engineered solution with few moving parts over the much larger company that has far more moving parts and their probably less well engineered solution with far more moving parts?
I personally would go with the simpler solution because in my experience you need an awful lot of extra complexity before you get to the same level of reliability that you have with the simpler system. Most complexity is just making things worse.
You can see this clearly when it comes to clustering servers. A single server with a solid power supply and network hookup will be more reliable than any attempt at making that service redundant until you get to something like 5x more costly and complex. Then maybe you'll have the same MTBF as you had with the single server. Beyond that you can have actualy improvements. YMMV and you may be able to get better reliability at the same level of performance in some cases but on average it always first gets far more complex, costly and fragile before you see any real improvements.
I strongly believe that the best path to real reliability is simplicity (which is: as simple as possible) and good backups. For stuff that needs to be available 24x7 and 365 days per year this limits your choices in available technologies considerably.