For several years I've been using Gmail as my primary email, with my server redirecting anything@mydomain.com to the Gmail and then using my server's SMTP for the outgoing. So the end users email me@mydomain.com and when I reply they see me@mydomain.com, but I'm able to see the email at Gmail.com on my computers, phone, etc.

I also IMAP the Gmail to my Outlook 365, mainly so that I can automatically archive emails from Gmail to a local .PST file and save room on my Google account. I don't pay for the Google account so I have 15G, and my email archive is a little over 12G by itself!

(Note that I pay for 365 instead of Google because my girlfriend really likes using Outlook on her computer and occasionally uses some of the other Office programs. I also have 1TB of OneDrive cloud storage with it, so that helps when we're sharing files.)

But my main computer gave up the ghost a few weeks ago.

I was able to save the .PST files so I didn't lose my archives emails, but I'm going to have to start over on creating the accounts in Outlook, all of the archive rules and settings, etc :-(

That's when I saw... Outlook.com can do the same thing as Outlook, and as a 365 subscriber it comes with 50G of storage!

So now I'm debating on 3 options:

1. Go back to the way it was before, using the downloaded Outlook to archive everything as needed

2. Upload all of the local stuff to Outlook.com and keep it online instead of locally (advantage is that if I have a computer crash then it will be protected; disadvantage is that I have to keep paying for 365 indefinitely)

3. Abandon Gmail entirely, and set up Outlook.com to send through my server the way that Gmail was. Then I can forget about archiving altogether

Which would you do? I'm leaning towards the third option, but since I've never used Outlook.com I'm a little nervous about going all in and then regretting it for some reason.

Are there any advantages / disadvantages to using Outlook.com over Gmail.com?