Microsoft EA Pricing Explained (2025)
Understanding Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) pricing has become critical in 2025 for any large organization.
An EA is a three-year contractual commitment with Microsoft, and its costs directly impact your IT budgets, cloud adoption plans, and flexibility to pivot. The stakes are higher than ever – Microsoft’s pricing model is intentionally complex and evolving.
In fact, Microsoft is phasing out traditional volume discounts in 2025, which could result in automatic cost increases of 6–12% for large enterprises that renew without a strategic approach.
With Microsoft aggressively promoting cloud services and new AI add-ons, procurement leaders and CIOs must carefully examine EA pricing to avoid overspending and secure the best possible terms.
How Microsoft EA pricing works
At its core, Microsoft’s EA pricing is based on licensing volume and coverage:
- Per-user (or device) vs per-core costs: Most modern Microsoft products under an EA are licensed per user (e.g., Microsoft 365 apps for each employee) or per device. Meanwhile, server software (like Windows Server or SQL Server) is often licensed per core. This means your costs scale with the number of users, devices, or processor cores you need to cover. User-based licensing covers “Qualified Users/Devices” in your organization, while core-based licensing covers the computing power of your servers.
- Enterprise-wide vs non-enterprise enrollment: A hallmark of EA is the enterprise-wide commitment. If you choose an “enterprise product” (for example, Office 365 or Microsoft 365 suites), you generally must license it for ALL eligible users or devices enterprise-wide. In return, you get a consistent price (historically even a volume discount) and simplified license management. You can still include other products in the EA as needed without enterprise-wide coverage (called “additional products”), but your main committed products set the foundation of the deal. Essentially, an EA rewards broad commitment across the organization, whereas cherry-picking only a few licenses is better suited to other licensing programs.
- Role of Software Assurance: Every license purchased through an EA includes Software Assurance (SA) by default. SA is Microsoft’s maintenance and support program, and it typically adds about 25% of a license’s cost per year (already factored into EA pricing). In practice, SA provides benefits such as version upgrades, training vouchers, support incidents, and license mobility rights. It’s a built-in part of EA pricing – you cannot opt out of SA within an EA. This means you should factor in the value of SA benefits during negotiations; if you’re not using those benefits, you might be overpaying.
- True-up mechanics and cost impact: The EA’s “true-up” process is how Microsoft handles changes in your usage. Rather than buying new licenses immediately when you hire a new employee or deploy a new server, you simply track the growth. At the end of each annual period of the EA, you report any increases in users, devices, or cores since the last count – and then you true-up by purchasing those incremental licenses for the remaining term. True-ups can significantly impact costs if your organization expands or introduces new services. For example, adding 500 new users six months into the year means you’ll owe a pro-rated cost for those users at the anniversary. True-ups give flexibility (no need to pre-pay day one for growth), but misjudging growth can bust your budget. It’s important to forecast and negotiate how true-ups will be handled to avoid surprise bills.
Key EA pricing components
Several product families and add-ons dominate the cost structure of a typical Enterprise Agreement:
- Microsoft 365 suites (E3 vs E5 vs F3): User productivity suites like Microsoft 365 are often the centerpiece of an EA. The E3 plan provides core Office apps, email, and standard security features, and is the choice for most knowledge workers. E5 is the premium plan that adds advanced security, compliance tools, analytics (Power BI Pro), and features such as a phone system and audio conferencing. E5 can cost almost 50–70% more per user than E3 – a huge jump in price – so deciding who truly needs E5 is a major driver of EA cost. There’s also F3 (Frontline) licenses for field or frontline workers, which are lower-cost, tailored for users who don’t need full desktop apps or advanced features. Optimizing the mix (e.g., majority on E3, only certain roles on E5, many hourly workers on F3) can yield big savings while still covering everyone’s needs.
- Server licenses (SQL Server, Windows Server) per-core: If your EA includes on-premises server software, these are usually licensed per processor core. SQL Server and Windows Server are common examples. Microsoft requires you to count the number of cores in the physical or virtual machines and license accordingly (often sold in 2-core packs). These can be high-ticket items in an EA, especially for organizations running many servers or data centers. The EA pricing locks in the price per core for three years, which is valuable given the high cost of these licenses. Keep in mind that if you plan to shift more workloads to Azure or decommission servers, you might negotiate down the quantity of these licenses rather than over-committing for three years.
- Security and compliance add-ons: Beyond the base suites, many enterprises add specialized security and compliance tools. These could include Enterprise Mobility + Security (EMS) suites, Azure Active Directory Premium, Microsoft Defender security suites, compliance tools like Advanced eDiscovery, or information protection add-ons. Some of these are bundled in E5, but if you stick with E3, you might purchase certain E5 add-ons (for example, “E5 Security” or “E5 Compliance” packages) for a subset of users. Each add-on layered onto your E3 users increases cost, so it’s important to evaluate which users truly need them. Microsoft’s EA pricing will often bundle these add-ons at a slight discount if you include them from the start, but they still add up. Be cautious of bundle fatigue – it’s easy to keep layering extras and suddenly your “E3 + add-ons” costs as much as E5.
- Copilot and AI-driven add-ons: AI is the new frontier of Microsoft’s product push. In 2025, Microsoft 365 Copilot (an AI assistant across Office apps) and similar AI features are being offered as add-ons – often at a very high cost (for instance, Copilot has been priced around $30 per user/month, nearly as much as an E3 license itself!). Microsoft is eager to embed these AI tools into EAs as part of its strategy to upsell customers. If your renewal is approaching, expect discussions about incorporating Copilot or other AI services. While these tools can be transformative, they can also skyrocket your EA spend if rolled out broadly. Many organizations treat them as pilots or optional components: for example, negotiate a small number of Copilot licenses for Year 1 with an option to expand later, rather than buying it for all 10,000 users on day one. It’s crucial to approach AI add-ons with a cost/benefit mindset – ensure they deliver value before scaling up, and beware of Microsoft bundling tactics (e.g., “we’ll give you a better discount if you add Copilot for everyone”). In short, AI add-ons are becoming part of EA pricing conversations and need careful cost justification.
Factors that drive EA pricing
Every Enterprise Agreement is unique, but a few key factors tend to drive your overall pricing and what kind of deal you can negotiate:
- User counts and segmentation: The number of users (or devices) you cover is the single biggest cost driver – more users equal more licenses. However, how you segment those users is where savings lie. Not all employees need the most expensive licenses. For example, segmenting your workforce into knowledge workers vs. frontline workers allows you to assign more cost-effective licenses (F3 or E3) to those who don’t need the full suite of features. Likewise, you might only license a subset of users for premium add-ons or E5. Microsoft previously offered automatic price breaks at certain large user counts (Levels A through D), but in 2025, these volume tiers are being retired in favor of flat pricing. This makes segmentation and intentional license assignment even more important, since you can’t just rely on hitting a higher tier for a discount. Ultimately, your total user count and the mix of license types will heavily determine the EA’s price.
- Geographic coverage and global standardization: Multinational enterprises often sign a single global EA to cover all regions. Geographic factors can influence pricing in subtle ways – local currency fluctuations, regional pricing differences, and the complexity of managing a global agreement. Microsoft typically standardizes pricing in an EA (often in USD or your chosen currency) for all regions, which can be a benefit if some regions would otherwise pay more. On the flip side, a global EA may include markets where you have fewer users or different needs, so negotiation should account for regional exceptions if needed (e.g., different services in certain countries). Global standardization under an EA can drive up costs if you simply apply a one-size-fits-all bundle; savvy organizations analyze usage by region to avoid over-licensing in lower-usage areas. Ensure your EA pricing reflects your actual global deployment — sometimes segmenting by region or signing separate agreements for very different needs can be more cost-effective. Still, often a single EA simplifies management and maximizes overall discount leverage.
- Product mix – cloud-heavy vs. hybrid deployments: What you choose to include in the EA (and what you leave out) affects the price. If your organization is cloud-heavy – meaning you’re primarily licensing cloud services like Microsoft 365, Dynamics 365, and Azure through the EA – your costs will be more subscription-oriented and recurring. Microsoft often rewards larger cloud commitments with incentives or rebates (for example, Azure consumption commitments can yield additional discounts or funds). If you have a hybrid environment, you might also include a lot of on-premises licenses (Windows, Office perpetual, CALs, etc.) plus Software Assurance. A hybrid product mix can make the EA more complex and potentially more costly, but also gives negotiation leverage – Microsoft likes to see customers adopting cloud, so they might give better pricing if you include cloud services or larger Azure commitments in your EA. The key is to align the product mix with your IT strategy: don’t include a product for three years if you plan to phase it out in one year. Conversely, suppose you know you’ll be adopting certain Microsoft technologies mid-term. In that case, it might be cheaper to include them upfront in the EA pricing rather than adding later via true-up at possibly higher rates.
- Negotiated discount and pricing tiers: Negotiation plays a huge role in EA pricing. Historically, Microsoft had “programmatic” discounts (A–D levels) based on size, but beyond that, large customers could negotiate extra discounts or concessions. In 2025, with the standardization of pricing, your discount might not be automatic – but Microsoft can still provide custom discounts, especially if you have a strategic relationship or are committing to use more services. Factors such as a larger Azure spend, committing to upgrade all users to a higher suite, or competitive situations can motivate Microsoft to offer better pricing tiers. For example, even though list prices are aligning, you might negotiate a 15-20% off the list for certain products as part of a big renewal.Additionally, Microsoft sometimes offers growth-based discounts (e.g. agreeing to increase usage over time to unlock better rates). The bottom line is, everything is negotiable to some extent. Don’t assume the first price you’re quoted is the final—enter negotiations with benchmarks and aim to push your pricing below standard levels if your deal is sizeable. Also, consider non-price terms that save cost, like payment schedules or concessions like free training, to enhance the value of the deal beyond the sticker price.
EA pricing vs alternatives
Microsoft’s Enterprise Agreement is no longer the only game in town for large customers. Depending on your needs, you might consider these alternatives or complements:
- Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) program: The CSP model lets you buy Microsoft subscriptions (and even some licenses) through a Microsoft partner on a pay-as-you-go basis, often billed monthly or annually per usage. CSP has no minimum user requirement or long-term commitment, which makes it attractive for flexibility. If you dislike the rigid 3-year lock-in of an EA, CSP could be a solution. Pricing under CSP is set by the partner (usually based on Microsoft’s list prices, sometimes with a small discount or added services). In 2025, with EA volume discounts being eliminated, the price gap between EA and CSP has narrowed. This means that a well-negotiated CSP deal might be comparable in cost to an EA for some organizations, while providing the ability to scale licenses up and down more freely. However, CSP often includes partner value-added services (support, advisory) baked into the cost. Also note that CSP doesn’t include Software Assurance benefits, and price protection is only as good as the subscription term (prices can adjust over time). Many enterprises are now mixing CSP and EA – for example, using CSP for smaller subsidiaries or specific cloud workloads where flexibility is key, and keeping an EA for core enterprise-wide products. If you consider switching to CSP entirely, model it carefully: ensure your partner can handle your scale and check if any EA-only discounts or benefits would be lost.
- Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA-E) for cloud-only deals: The Microsoft Customer Agreement for Enterprise (often called MCA-E) is a newer contract framework Microsoft offers for purchasing cloud services directly, without an EA. It’s an evergreen agreement with no fixed term or minimum, basically a streamlined way to buy Azure, Microsoft 365, etc., directly from Microsoft on a consumption basis. MCA-E can be appealing if you’re primarily focused on Azure cloud consumption or if you don’t meet the minimum size for an EA. The trade-off is that the MCA doesn’t automatically include volume discounts or price locks for 3 years – you pay the going rate (though you may negotiate some discounts for committing to certain spending levels). Think of MCA as a pay-as-you-go contract with Microsoft: it offers flexibility and simplicity (and is fully digital to manage), but you give up some of the negotiated pricing advantages of a large EA. Some enterprises use MCA for Azure while maintaining an EA for user licenses, especially if Microsoft encourages them in that direction (indeed, Microsoft has been promoting cloud-only customers to use MCA-E). It’s worth comparing an Azure MCA vs an Azure commitment in EA – one might yield better rates or incentives depending on your scenario.
- Hybrid approach (mixing EA and other channels): You don’t necessarily have to choose only one agreement type. A common strategy is a hybrid approach. For example, you might renew an EA for your core Microsoft 365 user licenses (ensuring enterprise-wide coverage and a locked price), but purchase Azure through a CSP or MCA to benefit from month-to-month flexibility and avoid a big upfront commitment. Or vice versa: use an EA for a large Azure commitment if Microsoft offers a significant discount, but handle a subset of specialized licenses via CSP through a partner who provides extra support. The key is to maximize value and leverage: if Microsoft’s EA proposal isn’t compelling for a certain product set, see if that piece can be shifted to an alternative channel. Keep in mind contract rules – if you have committed “enterprise products” in your EA, Microsoft expects you to purchase all those licenses via the EA (you can’t move those to CSP mid-term without breaking compliance).But additionally, non-committed products could potentially be bought elsewhere if it’s advantageous. More organizations in 2025 are open to leaving the traditional EA if it doesn’t suit their needs, especially given Microsoft’s push toward standard pricing. Exploring alternatives provides leverage: even if you stick with EA, having a credible plan to switch part of your estate to CSP/MCA can be a powerful negotiating chip.
Common pitfalls with EA pricing
Negotiating and managing an Enterprise Agreement is tricky. Here are some common pitfalls that often lead to overspending or regret down the road:
- Overcommitting to E5 for all users: Microsoft’s sales teams often push the top-tier E5 suite as the all-in-one solution for your enterprise. While E5 has impressive capabilities, the reality is that most users won’t utilize all of its features. If you blanket-license E5 for everyone, you could be paying roughly 50% more per user for features that only a fraction of employees truly need (advanced security, telephony, analytics, etc.). A classic pitfall is agreeing to an E5 uplift across the board, only to find later that, say, 70% of those users never used the E5-only features. The practical approach is to match license levels to user needs: perhaps only IT administrators and specific roles receive full E5, while the majority remain on E3 (with perhaps a couple of add-ons). Don’t let the allure of “latest and greatest” E5 lead to shelfware – it’s better to start conservatively and upgrade certain users later if needed, than to overspend from day one.
- Miscalculating true-up costs and growth: Another common mistake is underestimating how much the license count will change over the EA term. It’s easy to sign the EA for, say, 5,000 users and assume costs are fixed – then your company acquires another company or expands, adding 1,000 more employees, and you get a huge true-up bill at year-end. Or you might roll out new Microsoft services mid-term (like more Power BI or Dynamics licenses) and forget that those will incur a true-up charge. Mismanaging this can blow the budget. The pitfall is two-fold: failing to forecast growth (or reduction) accurately, and not communicating internally that new deployments incur costs. To avoid this, always model best-case and worst-case scenarios for growth and set aside budget for true-ups. Also, when negotiating the EA, you could discuss pre-agreed pricing for additional licenses to avoid paying the full list price for true-ups. Some customers negotiate caps or concession units to facilitate growth, making future additions more predictable. In short: change plan – an EA is three years long, and very few organizations stay static over that time.
- Ignoring Software Assurance value: Software Assurance is baked into the EA cost, but many enterprises fail to actually use the benefits that come with it. This is a pitfall because you’re leaving value on the table. SA gives rights like new version upgrades (important for Windows and Office perpetual users), but also extras like training days, Microsoft support credits, home-use program for Office, and license flexibility (e.g. you can move licenses to the cloud). If you ignore these, you might feel “we’re paying 25% extra for nothing.” Alternatively, some organizations in 2025 are considering reducing SA coverage on products they don’t expect to upgrade or that they plan to retire. For example, if you have some legacy servers you’ll decommission in a year, paying SA on them might be wasted money. The key is to evaluate the SA item by item: leverage the benefits where they matter to justify the cost, and negotiate for equivalent value. If Microsoft knows you value certain SA benefits less, you might push for a discount or find a different licensing approach (like moving to subscription licenses that inherently include upgrades). Don’t treat SA as an afterthought – it’s part of what you’re paying for, so use it or lose it.
- Underestimating Azure and cloud commit costs: Microsoft often encourages including an Azure spending commitment in your EA. The pitfall here is committing to more cloud spend than you can realistically consume, just to get a notional discount or appease Microsoft’s account team. If you agree to, say, an $8M Azure commitment over 3 years but end up only using $5M, you might still be paying for the full $8M (or rushing to “use it or lose it” by year-end on things you don’t need). Another aspect is the misunderstanding of Azure pricing within the EA – sometimes, EA Azure pricing is simply pay-as-you-go, with perhaps a small discount or credit. If you don’t negotiate, you might not actually be saving versus a normal pay-go plan. Additionally, Azure usage can spike unexpectedly; if you haven’t put governance in place, you could blow past your commitment and incur overage costs. The lesson is to scrutinize cloud commitments: make sure any promised Azure spend aligns with your IT projects and timeline. Start with conservative commit levels (you can often add more later). And if Microsoft dangles a bigger discount for a larger commitment, calculate if that discount truly offsets the risk of over-commitment. It’s better to slightly under-commit and exceed it (Microsoft will gladly take more money if you go over, usually at the same rates) than to over-commit and under-utilize. In negotiation, ensure Azure terms are flexible and clearly understood.
EA pricing scenarios
To see how smart planning can reduce EA costs, here are a few example scenarios comparing a baseline EA vs. an optimized approach:
| Scenario | Baseline EA Pricing | Optimized EA Pricing | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5,000 M365 E3 users | $15M total over 3 years | $12M with negotiated discount | $3M (20%) |
| 3,000 mixed (E3 + F3) users | $10M total over 3 years | $7.5M through license segmentation (right-sizing E3 vs F3) | $2.5M (25%) |
| Azure $8M commitment | $8M paid (upfront commit) | $5M aligned to actual adoption (commit only what you need) | $3M (37%) |
In these simplified scenarios, the baseline assumes standard pricing with no particular optimizations. The optimized outcomes demonstrate potential savings through negotiating discounts, tailoring license types to users, and aligning more closely with actual cloud usage.
The savings can be substantial – millions of dollars over the term of the EA.
Every enterprise’s numbers will differ, but the principle is consistent: an informed negotiation and a tailored licensing strategy drastically reduce costs versus a one-size-fits-all, vendor-led approach.
Five strategies to manage EA pricing
Negotiating a Microsoft EA in 2025 requires a proactive, strategic approach. Here are five proven strategies to manage and reduce EA pricing:
- Start early and build leverage with data: Don’t wait until a month before your EA expires to start discussions. Begin preparing 12–18 months in advance by collecting detailed data on your current Microsoft usage. Understand which licenses are underused, where cloud spend is going, and what features people actually leverage. Early preparation gives you leverage – you’ll have time to engage other stakeholders, consider alternative solutions, and even solicit competitive bids (via CSP partners, for example). When Microsoft comes to the table, you can counter their proposals with hard data and benchmarks. For instance, if you know only 10% of your users use Power BI, you can push back on an attempt to bundle it for everyone. Starting early also lets you align internal support (CIO, CFO, procurement) so that Microsoft’s end-of-quarter pressure doesn’t force you into a rushed decision. In short, the sooner you start, the more options and leverage you have.
- Segment users instead of blanket E5 adoption: As discussed, not every employee needs the most expensive SKU. A key strategy is to divide your users into profiles or tiers based on their needs. Perhaps you have a core of power users or executives who truly benefit from E5 or certain add-ons, while the bulk of employees can do perfectly well with E3 (and maybe some with even lighter licenses). By presenting Microsoft with a plan that says, “We intend to license 500 users with E5, 4,000 with E3, and 1,000 with F3,” you demonstrate a thoughtful approach to licensing rather than accepting the blanket recommendation of “E5 for all.” Microsoft might push back, but data is your friend: show usage stats or security needs that justify why only certain folks need E5. Additionally, consider third-party solutions you might be using that cover some E5 features – if you have a separate security solution in place, you might not need Microsoft’s equivalent for everyone. Optimizing your license mix is often the most effective way to reduce unnecessary costs. It requires internal analysis of roles and needs, but the savings can be massive over the contract term.
- Push for Software Assurance value (or cut it where it’s not needed): Since you’re paying for SA in an EA, make sure you extract value from it. Engage Microsoft on this during negotiations: for example, ask for Software Assurance Planning Services, training days, or workshops to be delivered as part of the deal, so your teams actually benefit from those “free” services. Ensure you activate any support vouchers or use Home Use Program benefits to increase employee adoption – all these things increase the ROI of what you’re already buying. Conversely, identify areas where SA isn’t providing value. If you have perpetual licenses with SA but don’t plan to upgrade them (maybe you’re moving to cloud services within a year or two), you could negotiate moving those to a cheaper agreement or dropping them at renewal. Microsoft won’t voluntarily reduce SA costs, but if you signal that certain products might be dropped entirely, they might offer a concession to keep them in the EA. The strategy here is twofold: maximize the benefits of SA where you keep it, and minimize coverage where it doesn’t make sense. This could also involve substituting a subscription (which inherently includes upgrade rights) for a perpetual license with support and maintenance (SA) if that’s cheaper in the long run. Be sure to quantify SA’s value in terms of dollars saved through upgrades or services used – this strengthens your position that you know what you’re paying for.
- Model CSP and MCA-E as alternative options: Even if you think you’ll stick with an EA, do the due diligence of pricing out alternatives. Get quotes from one or two reputable CSP partners for your license set – see what monthly CSP costs would be and what services the partner includes. Likewise, consider Microsoft’s MCA for Azure or other services to see if it offers more flexibility or similar pricing. By doing this, you accomplish two things: (a) You might discover a scenario where moving off EA actually makes sense financially or operationally; (b) even if it doesn’t, you now have a negotiation trump card. You can go to Microsoft and say, “Look, we have an option to go CSP and save X% or gain more flexibility – what can you do to make staying on EA worth our while?” Microsoft, not wanting to lose a large direct EA customer, may respond with better discounts or terms. Internally, having an alternative model sketched out also helps stakeholders understand the value of the EA (or lack thereof). It prevents complacency. In negotiations, simply mentioning that you’re evaluating a CSP move can change the tone – Microsoft will likely highlight EA’s benefits (price locks, coverage). It may be willing to sweeten the deal to avoid you switching. The key is you must be willing to walk if the EA offer isn’t good; that credible threat is often what secures the best concessions.
- Negotiate true-up terms and flexibility: Many EA negotiations tend to focus on upfront unit prices, but savvy customers also negotiate terms related to growth and change. You can request things like price caps on true-ups (e.g., any additional licenses added during the term keep the same discounted unit price you negotiated initially, rather than the list price at the time of addition). You might negotiate the ability to make downward adjustments at anniversaries in case of layoffs or divestitures – Microsoft traditionally doesn’t like to reduce counts mid-term. Still, for subscription licenses, they sometimes allow an annual reduction of up to a certain percentage. Another angle is unlimited true-up at a fixed price.In some cases, customers have negotiated the right to add as many users as needed at a fixed cost, which provides great budget certainty (albeit at a premium for that insurance). If you foresee specific changes, put them on the table. For example, if you know you’ll acquire a company next year, negotiate now how those new users will be priced (maybe get an agreement that they’ll be added at the same discount tier). Also,clarify the treatment of new products – if you want the freedom to adopt, say, a new Microsoft cloud service mid-term, can you add it with similar discounts? By ironing out these terms, you mitigate the risk of future surprises. Microsoft may not grant everything, but even small concessions like a predictable unit price for additions or a one-time flexibility to drop 10% of licenses if needed can protect your budget. Remember, an EA is as much about terms and conditions as it is about price — use the negotiation to craft an agreement that fits your business’s anticipated changes.
Related articles
- Microsoft EA Pricing Models
- Hidden Costs in Microsoft EA Contracts: What to Catch Before You Sign
- Microsoft EA Pricing Benchmarks by Industry
FAQs
How does Microsoft EA pricing work? → It’s essentially a per-user or per-core licensing model that covers your entire enterprise for a fixed term. You commit to certain products organization-wide, pay annually (over three years), and include Software Assurance and true-up any growth each year.
Is E5 always worth the price? → No, not for everyone. E5 is the top-tier bundle, and most organizations find that only a minority of users truly need all those advanced features. Many companies save money by mixing E3 or F3 licenses for a large portion of users and reserving E5 only for specific roles.
Can I switch from an EA to CSP for better pricing? → Yes, you can transition to the Cloud Solution Provider model, which might offer more flexibility and even cost savings for certain scenarios. However, you should model it carefully – ensure the pricing (after any partner fees or lost discounts) genuinely beats your EA, and plan the operational aspects of managing licenses via a partner.
What drives EA costs the most? → The biggest factors are the number of users you’re licensing (and how many of those you put on high-cost plans like E5), any Azure/cloud spend commitments baked into the deal, and the breadth of premium add-ons or extra products you include. Essentially, high user counts, lots of E5 licenses, and large Azure commitments will drive costs up fastest.
How do I reduce EA pricing? → The keys to reducing costs are negotiation and optimization. Come to the table with data to negotiate better discounts, right-size your licenses so you’re not overpaying for unnecessary features, and avoid overcommitting to more product or capacity than you need. Additionally, consider alternative licensing channels for parts of your portfolio to keep Microsoft competitive. All these tactics combined will help trim the fat from an EA and ensure you’re paying only for true value.
Read about our Microsoft Negotiation Services.
Microsoft EA Pricing Explained How to Keep Costs Low in Your Next Renewal
Do you want to know about our Microsoft Negotiation Services?
