Microsoft’s Enterprise Agreement (EA) pricing in 2025 is more complex than ever.
On the surface, the EA still offers one contract to cover your organization’s Microsoft software and cloud services.
However, under the hood, Microsoft is pushing customers toward higher-cost bundles, such as Microsoft 365 E5, new AI add-ons like Copilot, and substantial Azure spending commitments.
These shifts mean enterprises risk overspending if they don’t fully understand the EA cost structure.
With Microsoft aggressively upselling premium products and tightening discounts, procurement leaders and CIOs need to be more strategic and skeptical when navigating EA pricing models. Read our guide to Microsoft EA pricing.
In short, understanding how Microsoft’s pricing works in 2025 is essential to negotiate effectively and avoid surprise costs.
Step 1: Understand Microsoft EA Pricing Structure
An EA is fundamentally a volume licensing deal, and its cost structure has traditionally depended on how many users you have, what you’re buying, and where.
Historically, Microsoft used tiered pricing levels (A, B, C, D) based on seat count: a company with around 500 users paid “Level A” the highest price).
In contrast, a company with 15,000+ users might get “Level D” pricing (much lower per-license). In general, more seats meant a lower price per user.
In 2025, this picture is shifting – Microsoft is phasing out those automatic volume discounts for cloud services – but the principle remains: larger commitments give more negotiating power on price. Your product mix also matters.
Committing to a broad suite (like the Microsoft 365 bundle covering Windows, Office, security, etc.) often yields better value per product than buying many separate, smaller products.
Region can play a role too, as Microsoft’s price lists vary by geography and currency, and global enterprises might see differences or need to negotiate local pricing nuances.
It’s important to distinguish between on-premises licenses, cloud subscriptions, and hybrid setups under an EA. With on-premises software (like Windows or Office perpetual licenses), you typically pay upfront for a license and add Software Assurance (SA) to it for ongoing benefits.
Software Assurance pricing is a significant factor – it generally adds an annual fee (around 25-30% of the license cost each year) in exchange for version upgrades, support, training credits, and flexibility like moving licenses to the cloud.
In an EA, SA is usually mandatory for on-prem products, which means an EA’s cost includes that maintenance layer.
By contrast, cloud services (like Microsoft 365 or Dynamics 365 subscriptions) are priced per user per year, and they inherently include updates (so no separate SA cost, although you might consider the subscription itself analogous to a combined license + SA).
In a hybrid model, where you still run some on-prem software and use some cloud services, the EA’s structure lets you include both.
You might, for example, cover Windows Server licenses (with SA) for your data centers and Microsoft 365 subscriptions for your Office apps in one agreement.
The key point is that the EA can bundle a variety of licensing types, but each has its own pricing logic that feeds into the overall EA cost.
Microsoft’s EA pricing tiers and terms are also tied to commitment length and enterprise-wide coverage. An EA is a three-year agreement by default.
When you sign, Microsoft typically locks your pricing for the full term – providing price protection against Microsoft’s public price increases. This is valuable in times of frequent price hikes or inflation.
However, in exchange, you commit to a certain number of licenses as a baseline for those three years.
Enterprises are expected to maintain an “enterprise-wide” coverage for core products in an EA, meaning if you choose an EA, you agree to license all eligible users for a set of primary products (for instance, if you choose Office 365 E3 as a product, you must license every user who uses Office in your organization under the EA).
This all-in commitment is part of the EA’s structure and is one reason Microsoft offers discounts for it – you’re standardizing on their technology company-wide.
The trade-off is less flexibility in dropping or reducing licenses mid-term.
Understanding this structure is crucial: if your company might shrink or you’re not sure every user really needs the chosen product, an EA’s one-size-for-all approach can lead to paying for unused licenses.
Finally, note that Microsoft has been raising the bar on who qualifies for an EA. Historically, companies with 500+ seats were eligible.
By 2025, Microsoft will effectively steer smaller customers away from EAs. In practice, if you have under roughly 2,400 users (and certainly under 5,000), Microsoft might not even offer you an EA at renewal.
They’d push you to other models like CSP or the Microsoft Customer Agreement.
This means the EA is increasingly geared toward large enterprises that can commit big volumes.
Large organizations still benefit from the EA’s unified structure and perks (like comprehensive Software Assurance rights and fixed pricing). Still, smaller enterprises now have to look at newer, more flexible licensing programs.
Step 2: Key Pricing Levers
Within an EA, several key levers determine what you ultimately pay. Recognizing these can help you shape a better deal:
- Volume Licensing Discounts: Volume has always been the classic lever – the more you buy, the cheaper each unit gets. Microsoft’s volume licensing discounts used to be baked into the EA via those tiered pricing levels. For example, if you crossed a certain seat threshold, you automatically got a lower price (a company at 10,000 seats might have enjoyed perhaps 10%+ lower prices per user than one at 1,000 seats). In 2025, Microsoft is removing the automatic tiered discounts for cloud subscriptions, meaning that by default, all organizations pay the same list price for, say, a Microsoft 365 license, regardless of size. However, that doesn’t mean the end of volume deals – it just shifts the focus to negotiated discounts. Now the onus is on the customer to explicitly negotiate price breaks based on their volume and strategic value. Enterprises should come prepared to make the case for a discount: if you’re enrolling tens of thousands of users, you can argue for better than list price even if Microsoft’s standard program no longer gives it by default. Volume still matters greatly – but it’s a lever you must actively use in negotiation.
- Enterprise-Wide vs. Selective Adoption: Microsoft Rewards the Breadth of Adoption. If you roll out a product (or bundle) to everyone enterprise-wide, you often get better pricing or at least qualify to use an EA. Selecting an Enterprise Agreement means you’ve agreed to standardize widely on Microsoft tech. This can unlock benefits such as additional discounts or funding (Microsoft sometimes provides incentive funds for deployments if you’re fully committed to their stack). Conversely, if you take a selective approach – say only half your staff gets a certain license – you might not qualify for an EA for that product and might have to buy it separately (often at a higher per-unit cost or via a different channel). One lever to control costs is being thoughtful about who truly needs which level of license. Under an EA, you can mix license levels (for example, you might license 20% of users with a pricier Microsoft 365 E5 and the rest with E3). That mix-and-match flexibility is itself a lever to optimize spend: you don’t have to over-license everyone at the highest level. The strategy should be to standardize where it counts, but not automatically overspend on premium licenses for users who won’t use those features. Microsoft’s sales reps will try to convince you to give all users the most feature-rich (and expensive) bundle, but you have the leeway to tier your users internally and purchase accordingly.
- Timing and Microsoft’s Fiscal Cycle: When you negotiate, it can impact the price. Microsoft, like many vendors, has quotas and targets aligned to its fiscal year (which ends June 30). That means in the months leading up to that (especially May and June), account teams become eager to close deals and hit their numbers. There can be additional one-time discounts or incentives available if you align your EA renewal or purchase to coincide with Microsoft’s end-of-quarter or end-of-year. For example, negotiating an EA renewal in Microsoft’s Q4 might make them more flexible with discounts or throw in extras (like some free licenses or funding for consulting) to get the deal signed. Similarly, Microsoft often announces price increases or changes that take effect at the start of its fiscal year or calendar year. Being aware of these cycles allows you to time your agreement – either to lock in before an increase or to use an upcoming price hike as leverage (“if we renew now before that increase, we expect better terms”). In short, timing is a lever: you gain negotiation advantage by lining up with Microsoft’s calendar and using their internal pressure to your benefit.
- Renewal vs. New Agreement Dynamics: The context of your deal – renewing an existing EA versus signing a brand new one – influences pricing strategy. If you’re an existing EA customer, Microsoft will try to upsell you at renewal. They might push new product bundles (e.g., “It’s time to move from E3 to E5” or add-on services like security or voice features), which, if accepted blindly, raise your costs significantly. However, as a renewal customer, you also have leverage: Microsoft wants to retain your business, and you can threaten to walk away to other models (or even competitors for certain services). Frequently, customers approaching renewal can negotiate better discounts to prevent switching – for instance, getting a concession to stick with E3 instead of moving to E5, or securing a special price on an add-on if they agree to include it. On the other hand, if you’re considering a new EA (say you never had one, or you’re coming from another program), Microsoft may offer attractive initial pricing or discounts to win the business. But be wary: those could be introductory and might escalate in later terms. Also, if you’re moving from a month-to-month cloud purchase to an EA, Microsoft will emphasize the three-year cost savings, but double-check the math and ensure you’re not committing to more licenses than needed. A best practice is to model out a few years: sometimes renewing an EA (sticking with known quantities, maybe with a moderate growth estimate) can be cheaper than a pay-as-you-go approach, but in other cases, overcommitting in an EA might cost more than a flexible model if your needs shrink or change. Always use the renewal as a chance to renegotiate everything – pricing, terms, and options – and not just rubber-stamp the last agreement.
Step 3: Compare Pricing Models (EA vs. CSP vs. MCA-E)
Microsoft’s licensing landscape now offers multiple paths. The traditional EA is no longer the only option for large customers.
Two notable alternatives are the Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) program and the Microsoft Customer Agreement for Enterprise (MCA-E).
Each model has different implications for cost predictability, flexibility, and commitments:
- Enterprise Agreement (EA): The EA provides cost predictability. You lock in prices for three years, which means your per-user or per-server costs won’t increase during the term, and you can budget with confidence. It also often yields the lowest unit costs if you’re a very large buyer, because you can negotiate volume discounts that stack on top of Microsoft’s baseline. Another strength is the ability to negotiate custom terms – large enterprises can often get special pricing concessions or contractual terms (like fixed caps on renewal increases, or special discount pools) written into an EA. However, the EA lacks flexibility. You’re making a long-term commitment: you can generally add licenses as you grow (and pay pro-rata via the annual true-up), but you can’t reduce your license count until the agreement ends. If you overestimated usage, you’re stuck paying. And if Microsoft’s technology or your strategy changes mid-term, you have limited wiggle room. There’s also the fact that by default, you’re covering everything enterprise-wide, which can be overkill for some services. In terms of pricing strategy, an EA can be powerful for a stable organization that wants to optimize for low per-unit cost and can confidently project needs. But it can be costly for an organization that values agility or might shrink, because you pay for a fixed commitment regardless of actual usage until renewal.
- Cloud Solution Provider (CSP): CSP is the polar opposite in many ways – it maximizes flexibility. Under CSP, you typically work with a Microsoft partner (reseller) who provides the licenses with monthly or annual subscriptions. You can scale up or down as needed: for example, you could increase your Microsoft 365 user count one month and then reduce it a few months later if roles change or if you have temporary contractors. This agility means you pay for what you use, when you use it. CSP also offers various term options – you can get a slight discount for annual commitments, or pay a bit more for pure month-to-month plans. From a cost perspective, CSP is pay-as-you-go: there’s no big upfront commitment or locked multi-year contract. However, the trade-off is cost predictability and potentially higher unit prices. Microsoft’s CSP pricing is basically at list price (the partner might give you a small discount, often by shaving their margin, but you won’t see the kind of deep volume discount you might negotiate in an EA for 10,000+ seats). Additionally, if you choose month-to-month flexibility, Microsoft charges a premium (commonly ~20% higher for monthly versus annual). So while you avoid long-term lock-in, you might pay more per license in the long run if you keep those subscriptions active continuously. Another consideration: CSP doesn’t automatically include Software Assurance or on-prem rights. It’s mostly cloud-focused, so if you need to run older versions or use hybrid rights, you might need to own some perpetual licenses or add separate arrangements. In summary, CSP pricing is highly predictable in the short term (monthly bills) but less so long term, since Microsoft can adjust cloud prices and you have no contract shielding you. It’s cheaper if you need flexibility or if you might drop licenses, but if you’re going to keep a product for three years solid, CSP could end up costing a bit more than an EA deal for the same period. Many enterprises use CSP as a complement to an EA – for example, for smaller subsidiaries or pilot projects – to avoid overcommitting their main EA.
- Microsoft Customer Agreement – Enterprise (MCA-E): The MCA-E is relatively new and can be thought of as Microsoft’s attempt to give large customers a more flexible, cloud-centric deal without a full EA. Under an MCA-E, you sign Microsoft’s standard customer agreement (directly with Microsoft, no reseller in between) and then buy your subscriptions and Azure services on an ongoing basis via Microsoft’s portal. In practice, it behaves somewhat like CSP in that it’s evergreen (no fixed 3-year term) and allows you to add or remove licenses with ease. The cost model here is similar to CSP: you pay standard prices unless you negotiate something special, and pricing can adjust with Microsoft’s public pricing updates. You lose the guaranteed price locks of an EA – for instance, if Microsoft raises the price of Microsoft 365 by 5% next year, an MCA-E customer would eventually pay that new rate, whereas an EA customer would not during their term. On the plus side, MCA-E has no minimum seat requirement and no enterprise-wide mandates; you buy what you need, user by user. This modular approach is great for organizations that don’t want to commit everything to Microsoft or have highly variable needs. The downside: fewer built-in discounts and protections. In fact, Microsoft’s move in 2025 to eliminate volume price tiers aligns with the MCA-E philosophy – even a huge enterprise on MCA-E pays the same catalog price per license as a small business, unless you’ve separately negotiated a discount (like an Azure consumption commitment that comes with a rebate). MCA-E also currently focuses on cloud services; it doesn’t include traditional on-prem license/SA combos, so if you still need on-prem products with Software Assurance, you might require an EA or separate deals for those. Essentially, MCA-E is most appealing to cloud-first organizations that want a direct relationship with Microsoft, more flexibility than an EA, but still need an enterprise-grade agreement structure. It often makes sense if your company is in that mid-range where Microsoft might not offer a new EA, or if you’re large but want to avoid locking into a 3-year cycle for rapidly evolving services.
Cost predictability vs. flexibility: Summing up the comparison, the EA gives you predictability (fixed pricing and a known 3-year spend plan) at the cost of flexibility.
CSP and MCA-E give you flexibility (adjust as needed, no long contract) at the cost of guaranteed pricing and potentially higher long-term costs per unit.
One strategic approach many savvy enterprises use is a hybrid licensing strategy: combine models to maximize benefits.
For example, keep an EA for core, stable workloads that you know you’ll use at a large scale (locking in discounts and price protection for those), but use CSP or MCA-E for experimental projects, smaller departments, or uncertain growth areas.
This way, you’re not tying up everything in a rigid contract, but you still leverage your volume on the main pieces.
In 2025, with Microsoft’s changes, even very large customers are re-evaluating the mix. If the automatic EA discounts are gone, some are asking, “Why stay fully in an EA if we can get similar pricing in CSP with more agility?”
The answer might be to use an EA for what it’s truly best at (covering large, predictable needs, including any on-premises requirements), and use CSP/MCA-E for the rest.
The goal is to optimize Microsoft licensing costs by not overpaying for flexibility you don’t need, and not overspending on commitments you can’t escape.
Every enterprise should model scenarios for EA, CSP, and MCA-E to determine which blend yields the lowest total cost over time, considering their usage patterns.
Step 4: The Role of Add-Ons in EA Pricing
One big way Microsoft increases enterprise spend is through add-on products and upsell features.
Even if you negotiate a solid base price for, say, Microsoft 365 E3, the real budget creep often comes from all the extra modules Microsoft encourages you to layer on.
In 2025, the poster child of this is Microsoft 365 Copilot – an AI-powered assistant add-on. Microsoft has been heavily marketing Copilot as a productivity revolution, and early adopters are feeling pressure to at least trial it.
But the Copilot licensing costs are significant: roughly $30 per user per month on top of existing licenses. For a large enterprise, rolling out Copilot enterprise-wide could instantly add millions in annual spend.
The pricing uncertainties around Copilot (for example, how its cost might increase in the future or whether Microsoft might bundle it differently later) make it a risky add-on to accept without scrutiny.
Wise enterprises are approaching it with caution: demand pilot programs or proof-of-value stages before committing to a full deployment. Microsoft will use the allure of AI to drive higher average revenue per user, but you shouldn’t blindly agree to it.
AI-driven licensing pricing is a new realm, and it’s often negotiable – if not in price per se (Microsoft is pretty fixed on that $30 figure currently), then in terms of getting credits, shorter-term trials, or bundling it as part of a larger deal concession.
Beyond AI, there are numerous security, compliance, and analytics add-ons that factor into EA pricing discussions.
Think of things like advanced security suites (Microsoft Defender add-ons, Sentinel, etc.), compliance tools (Purview Information Protection, eDiscovery upgrades), or analytics (Power BI Premium, Viva Analytics).
Microsoft often separates these from the main bundles or only includes light versions in base products, so enterprises end up paying extra to get full functionality.
Each add-on may seem reasonably priced individually, but collectively, they can significantly increase your spend. For instance, an E5 license package itself is essentially a bundle of add-ons (telephony, advanced security, advanced compliance, analytics) on top of E3.
Microsoft’s sales tactic is to demonstrate the value or risk mitigation these add-ons provide – and many do offer real capabilities – but from a pricing perspective, you must weigh true cost vs. perceived value.
Some questions to consider: Are we using what we’ve already bought? Would a third-party solution we already own cover this function, negating the need to pay Microsoft extra? Can we get by with a smaller number of premium licenses just for the users who need these features (while others stay on the cheaper base license)?
Microsoft’s goal is to inflate the average revenue per user by selling more to each user (instead of just selling more users). Every new add-on (like Copilot or a new compliance feature) is an opportunity for them to charge existing customers more.
In negotiations, treat add-ons as optional and subject to high scrutiny.
They are prime candidates for phasing, trials, or exclusion if the budget is tight. Microsoft often uses bundling incentives – for example, they might say “if you upgrade everyone to E5, we’ll include Product X for free” or “adding this security suite will only be an extra $X per user,” trying to make it sound incremental.
Always calculate the annual and 3-year cost impact of each add-on.
A few dollars per user per month sounds small until you multiply by thousands of users over 36 months. By spotlighting these add-on costs, you can push back.
Perhaps you agree to some, but you get them at a discount or with a flexible term (e.g., a shorter term so you can drop it if it isn’t useful).
Or you use them as a bargaining chip: “We’ll consider Copilot later – for now, keep our price on the core licenses low, and we might add it mid-term if the value is proven.”
The main idea is: Add-ons can quietly drain your IT budget if not managed, so they need just as much attention in pricing strategy as the big-ticket base licenses.
Step 5: Hidden Costs and Traps
Negotiating a good price upfront is only half the battle – the other half is avoiding the hidden costs and contractual traps that can make a seemingly fair deal expensive over time.
Here are some common pitfalls in Microsoft EA deals to watch out for:
- True-Up Costs and Compliance Penalties: The EA’s flexibility in adding licenses as you grow comes with the true-up process – you true-up annually for any additional usage. It’s critical to budget for true-ups; many organizations overlook the fact that hiring new employees or launching a new project mid-year will incur prorated costs at the anniversary. Those true-up fees can be significant if you have a growth spurt. Even worse is falling out of compliance – if you deploy more software than you licensed and don’t report it, you risk penalties or back payments if Microsoft audits you. Microsoft’s compliance audits can be expensive, and any unlicensed usage will typically be charged at list price (often with backdated support costs, etc.). Avoid this trap by instituting strict internal license tracking. Always know your deployment vs entitlement. True-ups themselves aren’t a “penalty” – you’re just paying for what you actually used – but failing to account for them makes your effective costs higher than planned. And if you ever find yourself in a compliance hole, use the negotiation to get compliant rather than paying penalty rates later. Microsoft would rather you true-up voluntarily than chase you down, so sometimes you can negotiate a settlement or payment plan if you’ve gone over. The bottom line: Unexpected true-up costs can blow your budget; stay on top of usage and include growth in your cost models.
- Shelfware and Underutilization: One of the classic ways money is wasted in an EA is buying more than you need – commonly called shelfware (licenses sitting on the shelf unused). Because an EA locks you in for three years for a set number of licenses, if you overestimate your needs or if your organization downsizes, you could be stuck paying for licenses that no one is using. Similarly, upgrading everyone to a higher-cost SKU (like E5) when only a fraction of users actually use the advanced features means you’re paying premium prices for zero benefit for many users. This underutilization effectively raises your cost per active user or per active feature dramatically. To mitigate this, enterprises should perform regular usage audits. If you find that, say, only 60% of your E5 features are being used by a given department, you might plan to downgrade some users at the next renewal. Unfortunately, during the EA term, you generally can’t reduce quantities, so the trap is already sprung if you’re in mid-term. However, some EAs allow a limited “true-down” for certain subscription licenses at the anniversary – check if any of your licenses have that flexibility and use it if needed. Another strategy is to negotiate elasticity clauses (not common, but large customers sometimes ask for the right to reduce, say, 5-10% of licenses at anniversary without penalty – especially if they’re concerned about outsourcing or restructuring). Microsoft doesn’t like to give that, but it’s worth asking if you foresee changes. The lesson: license optimization is crucial – don’t pay for shelfware. Optimize your mix of licenses and quantities so that you’re not overspending on unused capacity.
- Contract Clauses Locking In High Costs: The fine print of an EA can contain clauses that favor Microsoft if not carefully managed. For example, some agreements have provisions that if a product you’re using is discontinued or modified, Microsoft can replace it with a successor product, which might be more expensive. One scenario some companies encountered is the push to E5 migrations: if Microsoft decides to phase out a lower bundle or stop selling certain standalone licenses, they might offer an “upgrade” that effectively moves you to a higher-cost bundle by default. Always clarify what happens if products change – insist on language that you won’t be forced into a pricier edition without consent. Minimum commitments are another trap. If you agreed to a minimum Azure spend or a certain number of licenses, even if your usage drops, you might still have to pay that minimum. Azure commits, for instance, are “use it or lose it” – if you commit to spend $1 million on Azure and only use $800k, you still pay $1M. Structure Azure commitments carefully and avoid overcommitting. Additionally, watch out for auto-renewal clauses. Microsoft’s newer agreements (like MCA-E) might auto-renew annually by default. In an EA, traditionally, you have to actively renew, but ensure you can renegotiate at renewal and not just accept some automatic price increase. Another hidden cost is index-linked price adjustments in some regions – if you’re signing an EA in a currency that’s not USD, check if Microsoft includes any right to adjust pricing due to exchange rate fluctuations or inflation indices. Price protection should mean no increases, period. If Microsoft tries to include any “we can adjust if X” clause, push back. In summary, scrutinize the contract for anything that could lock you into paying more: whether it’s automatic upgrades, usage floors, or sneaky renewal terms. It’s easier to negotiate those out before signing than to fight them later.
Pricing Strategy Checklist
| Pricing Strategy Checklist |
|---|
| Current EA pricing model documented |
| Volume discount thresholds (levels) verified (if applicable) |
| Add-on costs (Copilot, security extras) fully itemized and benchmarked |
| Alternative scenarios modeled (EA vs. CSP vs. MCA-E costs) |
| Renewal timing aligned with Microsoft’s fiscal cycle for leverage |
| Key negotiation levers identified (discounts, contract terms, etc.) |
| Shelfware/usage audit completed (to remove or downgrade unused licenses) |
| Software Assurance benefits vs. costs evaluated |
| Azure consumption plans reviewed for overcommitment risks |
| Pricing transparency from Microsoft demanded (full breakdown of unit costs) |
Use this checklist to ensure you’ve covered all bases before finalizing any EA renewal or new agreement. It helps to document each item, so you have a clear picture of your current state and negotiation strategy.
Five Best Practices for EA Pricing Strategy
- Model multiple scenarios (EA renewal vs. CSP vs. hybrid): Don’t assume sticking with the status quo is best – run the numbers for renewing your EA as-is, moving entirely to CSP/MCA-E, or a mix. This gives you data to negotiate and a Plan B if Microsoft’s offer isn’t good enough.
- Benchmark your discounts against peers: Come prepared with market knowledge. For example, know what percentage discount companies of similar size are getting on E5 or Azure. If Microsoft offers you 5% but others get 15%, you have grounds to push back. Microsoft EA discounts aren’t transparent, so your own research or a consultant’s data can provide leverage.
- Challenge the ROI of pricey add-ons: For any high-cost additions (like Copilot or advanced security packages), demand a clear ROI case. Treat them as separate decisions, not just part of the bundle. If Microsoft can’t demonstrate real value, consider delaying or excluding the add-on, or insist on a pilot period. Don’t let the excitement of AI or new features blow up your budget without proof that it’s worth it.
- Time your negotiation with Microsoft’s urgency: Whenever possible, initiate or climax your EA negotiations when Microsoft is under pressure – typically in their Q4 (spring/early summer) or end of quarter. You’re more likely to get concessions when the sales team is trying to hit a quota. Also, keep an eye on known price increase announcements; use them as a reason to lock your pricing before the hike (or to ask for a discount equivalent to the pending increase).
- Demand transparency and flexibility: Push Microsoft (and your reseller, if any) for transparent pricing breakdowns. You should know exactly what each component costs – no black box bundling where you can’t tell the unit price. This helps you identify what’s overpriced. Also, wherever you can, negotiate flexibility: the right to swap licenses for a different mix, the ability to adjust Azure commitments if cloud strategy changes, etc. If Microsoft truly wants your long-term business, it should be willing to collaborate on a deal that isn’t one-sided. Make it clear that you expect a partnership approach to pricing, not a take-it-or-leave-it.
Read Hidden Costs in Microsoft EA Contracts: What to Catch Before You Sign.
FAQs
How are Microsoft EA discounts calculated? → They’re based on your deal size – primarily the number of seats and the range of products you commit to enterprise-wide. Bigger, broader commitments historically got automatic discounts, but after 2025, those are mostly negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
Is CSP cheaper than EA? → Not always. CSP can be cheaper if you need to drop licenses or avoid long commitments, but per-user prices are generally higher than a well-negotiated EA. It depends on your usage stability and discount eligibility – stable large deployments usually still get a better unit rate under EA. In contrast, highly variable or smaller ones might save with CSP’s flexibility.
What’s the pricing impact of Copilot? → Potentially significant. Copilot is a costly add-on (around $30/user/month), which can noticeably increase your Microsoft spend. It promises productivity gains, but you should validate its value in your environment before rolling it out widely.
Can I negotiate Software Assurance pricing? → Yes, indirectly. While SA itself has a set percentage cost on licenses, you can negotiate the overall discount on your licenses or seek concessions (like free training days or support incidents) that effectively improve the value of SA. In an EA deal, everything is on the table – you can certainly question the necessity and price of SA on products you may not use upgrades for, and use that in negotiations.
Do I lose discounts if I move to an MCA-E? → You lose the automatic volume discounts that an EA might have provided, since under an MCA-E, you pay standard rates unless you have a special arrangement. However, you gain flexibility. Microsoft may still offer some discounts or incentives (especially for large Azure commitments) under an MCA-E. Still, generall,y the Microsoft volume licensing costs in an MCA-E are closer to list prices. The trade-off is that you’re not locked in, and you can adjust your spending more freely as needs change.
Read about our Microsoft Negotiation Services.
Do you want to know about our Microsoft Negotiation Services?
