Microsoft EA vs. CSP: Should You Stay with an EA or Use Cloud Solution Providers?

Microsoft EA vs. CSP

Introduction – EA or CSP? The Critical Decision for Microsoft Licensing

Choosing between a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) and a Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) arrangement is a critical decision for IT managers and procurement leaders in 2025.

Microsoft licensing models are shifting, and what was once the “default” path may no longer be the best fit.

This choice will impact your costs, flexibility in scaling technology, and even your ability to negotiate with Microsoft. In 2025, Microsoft introduced pricing changes that eliminated some traditional volume discounts, leveling the field between EA and CSP.

As a result, organizations are re-evaluating their licensing strategy with an eye on cost optimization, freedom from lock-in, and getting the most value from their Microsoft investments. Before simply renewing your EA because it’s what you’ve always done, it’s worth scrutinizing the differences and trade-offs of EA versus CSP.

Let’s break down the comparison across key factors like contract commitment, pricing, administration, support, and flexibility – all with a buyer-first perspective that questions Microsoft’s “default” pushes. The goal is to empower you with knowledge and negotiation leverage to choose the model that truly fits your organization’s needs.

Read our comprehensive guide, Microsoft Licensing Agreements Comparison: EA vs CSP vs MCA.

Commitment & Term

One of the most fundamental differences between an EA and CSP is the commitment period. With a Microsoft EA, you are entering a multi-year fixed contract (typically a 3-year term).

This means you commit upfront to a set of products and several licenses for three years, locking in pricing and terms for that duration. There’s a comfort in knowing your costs won’t increase during the term, but the flip side is rigidity – you’re essentially locked in for the full term.

If your needs change mid-stream, an EA doesn’t easily allow you to scale down or exit without penalties. EAs were historically designed for larger enterprises (traditionally 500+ users, and in recent years, Microsoft is steering even mid-sized customers toward other options), so they assume a relatively stable, long-range planning horizon.

In contrast, the CSP model offers shorter, flexible commitment terms. Licensing under CSP is subscription-based, usually month-to-month or annually, managed through a Microsoft partner. You can increase, decrease, or cancel subscriptions with much greater freedom.

For example, you might choose a monthly term for Microsoft 365 licenses, giving you the option to drop or add users every month. Annual terms are also available (often at a slight discount compared to month-to-month), but even then, you’re only committed for one year at a time instead of three.

No long-term contract is required – you pay for what you use and can adjust as needed. This flexibility is ideal if your organization’s headcount or service usage is likely to fluctuate or if you simply don’t want to be tied down by a multi-year deal.

In short, an EA is about commitment and predictability, whereas CSP is about agility and adaptability. The key is to determine whether a fixed 3-year commitment aligns with your business stability or if you need the breathing room of CSP’s cancel-anytime model.

Pricing – Discounts vs. Flexibility

Cost is often the make-or-break factor in the EA vs. CSP debate.

Historically, Enterprise Agreements have offered volume discounts that made the per-user or per-unit price lower for large organizations.

By committing to hundreds or thousands of licenses in an EA, companies could negotiate pricing tiers (Level A, B, C, D in Microsoft’s old model) – the more you buy, the cheaper each license gets. In addition, an EA locks your prices for 3 years, providing insulation against Microsoft’s frequent price hikes or currency fluctuations.

However, as of 2025, Microsoft is phasing out these automatic volume-based discounts for cloud subscriptions, meaning many EA customers will be paying closer to Microsoft’s list price for services like Microsoft 365.

This change narrows one of the traditional advantages of the EA. Very large enterprises may still negotiate special pricing, but mid-sized customers might find that an EA offers no significant unit price savings over CSP.

The CSP program, on the other hand, typically charges standard retail pricing (or close to it) for licenses and cloud services. You might not get the deep per-seat discount that a big EA could historically provide.

Yet, CSP can be more cost-effective in practice because of its “pay for what you use” nature. If your usage can scale down at times, CSP prevents you from overpaying for unused licenses.

Think of it this way: an EA is like an all-you-can-eat buffet—you pay a fixed price no matter how hungry you are—whereas CSP is à la carte, paying for each portion you actually consume.

For organizations with steady, unchanging usage, the EA’s locked-in bulk pricing could yield lower costs. But for those with seasonal shifts or uncertain growth, CSP’s flexibility can avoid wasteful spending.

For more comparisons, Microsoft EA vs. MPSA: Enterprise Agreement or Pay-as-You-Go Volume Licensing?.

To illustrate, consider two scenarios for a company that needs up to 100 user licenses at peak times:

In the steady usage scenario, the EA’s volume discount and price lock could save money (about 15% savings in this example) compared to CSP. However, in a seasonal usage scenario, the EA customer ends up paying for unused licenses during the slow period, resulting in a higher annual cost than if they had the flexibility to scale down under CSP.

This simple example shows that the value of an EA’s discount really depends on consistently high usage. If you can’t fully utilize what you’ve committed to, those discounts lose their shine, and you might actually overspend with an EA.

Another pricing factor is upfront financial commitment. EAs often require an upfront annual payment or a forecast of your three-year needs (for instance, an upfront commitment for Azure consumption or a set number of licenses). That can strain budgets and requires an accurate prediction of future needs.

CSP involves no large upfront commitments – you pay as you go, which helps cash flow and reduces the risk of over-committing. Keep in mind, though, that CSP pricing can be subject to Microsoft’s pricing adjustments more immediately.

For example, if Microsoft raises the list price of a product, EA customers might be shielded until renewal while CSP customers could see the increase sooner (especially on month-to-month plans).

On annual CSP subscriptions, your price is locked for that year’s term. This is a trade-off: EA gives predictable pricing for the term, whereas CSP gives you the freedom to reduce quantities or opt out if costs become too high.

In summary, if you value volume discounts and price protection and you’re confident in your 3-year usage levels, an EA might offer lower per-unit costs.

But if you value cost flexibility and granularity, and want to avoid paying for capacity you don’t need, CSP can potentially save you money despite the higher list prices.

Always run the numbers for your own organization’s scenarios – sometimes the best deal isn’t immediately obvious until you project the total cost of ownership under each model.

For more comparisons, Microsoft EA vs. Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA): Which Is Right for You?.

Administration & Billing

How you manage your licenses and receive bills differs significantly between EA and CSP, affecting your administrative workload. With an Enterprise Agreement, you deal directly with Microsoft (often via a licensing reseller) for licensing management. All your Microsoft software and subscriptions are consolidated under one agreement, which can simplify having a single view of your entitlements.

However, the administration can be complex. EA customers typically use Microsoft’s Volume Licensing Center or other portals to provision and track licenses.

There’s an annual true-up process where you must report any increases in usage. Tracking license usage to stay compliant (and avoid surprise costs at true-up time) becomes an internal task.

Billing under an EA is usually infrequent but large, commonly once per year (or annually per each of the 3 years), you’ll get an invoice reflecting your committed licenses plus any additions.

This predictable billing schedule is nice for budgeting, but it means your finance team deals with big lump sums and true-up invoices that might need internal reconciliation. Changes made mid-year (such as adding a new product SKU) may require contract addenda or coordination with Microsoft or your reseller.

Under CSP, administration is typically partner-driven and more streamlined.

Your organization will work with a Cloud Solution Provider partner who handles provisioning and billing.

In fact, many CSP partners provide a self-service portal where your admins can add or remove licenses in real time, which then automatically adjusts your monthly bill. Instead of an annual true-up report, license management is continuous – you simply increase or decrease subscriptions as needed.

This can reduce administrative headaches since you don’t have to negotiate those changes with Microsoft; it’s all handled through the partner’s tools. Billing is typically monthly, consolidating all your subscriptions into a single invoice from the partner.

For example, if you’re getting Microsoft 365, Azure, and perhaps some added services from the partner, all of that could appear on a single monthly bill. This regular cadence and consolidated billing can simplify accounting (eliminating huge annual true-up surprises) and provide more visibility into ongoing costs.

CSP partners often bring value-added services to administration as well. They might offer bundled services like license optimization reports, usage analytics, or automatic cost alerts for your Azure consumption.

Because the partner’s business is managing cloud subscriptions, they tend to be proactive in helping you right-size your licenses (it’s in their interest to keep you happy and avoid churn).

Also, if you have multiple Microsoft agreements or products, a good CSP can act as a one-stop shop so you’re not juggling multiple vendor contracts.

That said, the ease of CSP administration depends on the quality of your partner’s systems.

A top-tier CSP will have a polished portal and efficient processes; a less capable one might introduce its own administrative delays or errors. Always inquire about a CSP partner’s billing accuracy, portal capabilities, and how they handle requests.

Overall, though, for many organizations, CSP offers a more hands-off administrative experience – you outsource a lot of the license management complexity to the partner.

In contrast, an EA keeps you in the driver’s seat but with more paperwork and oversight required. If your team has limited bandwidth to micromanage licenses, CSP can lighten that load. If you prefer full control and direct interaction with Microsoft’s systems, an EA provides that at the cost of extra admin effort.

Support & Escalation

Support is a critical but sometimes overlooked aspect of the licensing model decision. Under an EA, your relationship is directly with Microsoft, but that doesn’t automatically mean you have free, unlimited support from Microsoft for all issues.

In fact, Microsoft’s Premier/Unified Support (formerly Premier Support, now Unified Support) is not included with an EA. Usually, it must be purchased as a separate contract if you want comprehensive, 24/7 direct support from Microsoft’s engineers.

Enterprise Agreement customers often purchase these support plans, especially larger ones, which give them direct access to Microsoft support for troubleshooting, escalations, and technical account management.

If you have a Unified Support contract, you can log support tickets with Microsoft and expect priority response (depending on your plan). You’ll have a TAM (Technical Account Manager) or service lead from Microsoft overseeing your support needs.

Additionally, EA customers are typically assigned a Microsoft account team (including account managers and cloud solution architects) who will periodically check in and can help escalate critical issues internally when needed.

There are also some limited support benefits bundled via Software Assurance (for example, a certain number of free support incidents or advisory hours, depending on your SA spend). Still, these are not a full substitute for a dedicated support agreement.

In contrast, with CSP, Microsoft expects the partner to handle frontline customer support. When you buy through a CSP, your primary support contact is the CSP partner rather than Microsoft. For day-to-day issues—be it a user having trouble activating Office, or a service outage impacting your tenant—you reach out to your partner’s support desk.

A good CSP partner will offer 24/7 support (or at least prompt support during business hours) and will have qualified technicians to resolve common issues or guide you through admin tasks.

Suppose the issue is something the partner cannot solve directly (for instance, a deep technical bug in Azure or a widespread service outage).

In that case, the partner will escalate to Microsoft on your behalf. CSP partners have their own channels into Microsoft support (often via a partner hotline or portal) to get Microsoft’s assistance. Essentially, the CSP acts as your advocate and intermediary in the support process.

There are pros and cons to this model. On the upside, partner-led support can be more personalized. The partner might be more familiar with your environment and needs than a random Microsoft support engineer would be.

They may also bundle a certain level of support at no extra charge (many CSPs include a basic support SLA in the cost of the licenses, which could be a cost saving compared to paying for a Microsoft support contract).

You might get hands-on help like the partner walking you through configuration changes, offering training, or even on-site support if they are local—services that Microsoft’s standard support wouldn’t cover without high fees.

However, the quality of support under CSP varies by partner. If you choose a top-tier CSP with a strong support reputation, customers often report excellent service. But a less experienced partner could become a bottleneck, slowing down responses or lacking the expertise to resolve complex problems quickly.

There is also an additional link in the chain during critical outages: if something is severely wrong (say a major Azure issue hitting your production), with an EA + Premier Support, you’d be on the phone with Microsoft directly; with CSP, you’re on the phone with the partner, who then contacts Microsoft. This can potentially slow down resolution if the partner isn’t efficient.

For some organizations, especially smaller ones, having the partner handle support is a relief. Your internal IT team might not have specialists for every Microsoft product, and the partner essentially augments your staff.

For larger enterprises with a robust IT team, you might prefer direct Microsoft support channels for faster escalation.

It’s worth noting that even CSP customers can still buy a Microsoft Unified Support plan if they want to, but that means paying extra, and somewhat negates the cost advantage of CSP, including support.

In summary, EA = direct Microsoft relationship (with separate paid support), CSP = one-stop support via partner (quality dependent on partner).

When evaluating CSP options, make sure to grill the partner about their support: What are their support hours and channels? Do they guarantee response times? How do they handle escalation to Microsoft?

Knowing this upfront will help you avoid unpleasant surprises. And if you’re negotiating an EA renewal, remember to factor in support costs (Microsoft might not mention that in the license quote, but you’ll need a support plan too). Savvy buyers sometimes use this in negotiations—e.g., “If we stick with EA, will Microsoft include some support incentives, since a CSP would give us support at no extra cost?”

The bottom line is that support should be a deciding factor: if you highly value Microsoft’s direct support and are willing to pay for it, an EA keeps that path open.

If you’re comfortable relying on a partner for day-to-day support and potentially saving money, CSP is built for that model.

Flexibility in License Management

Modern organizations need the ability to quickly adjust their technology usage, and this is where EAs and CSPs diverge sharply. With an Enterprise Agreement, your license counts are essentially fixed in one direction – upward.

You commit to a certain number of licenses for each product at the start. If you hire more people or deploy new software, you are allowed to exceed your initial count, but you must report those additions in the annual true-up and pay for them retroactively (usually pro-rated for the first year of use).

This process allows some ability to grow during the year, but it’s always a pay-later model for increases. What about decreases? Unfortunately, you cannot reduce your license count during the EA term for most products.

Let’s say you downsized from 500 employees to 450; you are still contracted to pay for 500 licenses until the EA term ends. The only time you can adjust downward is at the renewal (or if you cancel the EA entirely, which is rare and complicated).

This rigidity can lead to over-licensing: companies often end up paying for licenses they no longer need, or maintaining software subscriptions for users who have left, just because the contract doesn’t allow removal.

For organizations with very steady or growing needs, this isn’t much of an issue. But if your industry is volatile or your business is going through changes (mergers, divestitures, workforce fluctuations), the EA’s lack of downward flexibility is a real drawback.

CSP licensing is built for flexibility. You can scale both up and down every month (or even daily, effectively, since you can pro-rate within a month for many subscriptions). For example, if you hire 50 seasonal employees for a peak period, you simply add 50 extra Microsoft 365 licenses when they start (and you’ll pay just for the months they’re active).

When they leave, you can reduce those 50 licenses and stop paying for them the next month. You’re never stuck paying for more than you need beyond the current billing cycle. This agility is invaluable for scenarios such as short-term projects, contractors, interns, or business seasonal cycles (think retailers hiring extra staff for holidays or an accounting firm ramping up during tax season).

CSP lets you align your license spend exactly with your user headcount or usage of services. It’s also useful for trialing new services: want to pilot Microsoft Power BI with 10 users?

In CSP, you could add 10 subscriptions for a couple of months, and if it doesn’t work out, cancel them. In an EA, adding a new product for a pilot might lock you in for the remainder of the term for those 10, or at least require you to carry them through the year.

Another aspect of flexibility is in the product mix. EAs are somewhat all-or-nothing: they often require you to cover all users with certain key products. For instance, if you want Office 365 E3 in your EA, Microsoft typically expects you to license all eligible users for it (this is known as the enterprise-wide commitment).

In CSP, there’s no such requirement — you can buy licenses for just a subset of users. Maybe only one department needs a certain software; you don’t have to license everyone. That granularity can prevent overspending on users who don’t need a product.

The bottom line: EA’s license management is inflexible but predictable, whereas CSP offers granular control at the cost of needing active management.

With CSP, someone in your team (or your partner) will need to continuously manage licenses — removing those that aren’t needed, adding new ones for new hires, etc.

It’s an ongoing operational task, though many see it as a worthwhile trade-off to avoid paying for idle licenses. If your environment is very dynamic, CSP will shine.

If your environment is static and you prefer a set-it-and-forget-it approach, an EA might be acceptable — just remember that “forgetting it” could mean forgetting that you’re paying for 50 unused seats!

Cloud Services in EA vs CSP

Both EA and CSP programs allow you to purchase Microsoft’s cloud services (such as Microsoft 365, Dynamics 365, Azure, and more).

Still, there are differences in how these are provisioned and paid for under each model — particularly when it comes to Azure and other consumption-based services.

For Microsoft 365 (Office 365) or other user-based cloud subscriptions, an EA works much like it does for traditional software: you commit to several user licenses for the cloud service as part of your 3-year agreement. You might commit to, say, 1,000 Microsoft 365 E5 licenses on your EA. You’re then billed (often annually) for those 1,000 users.

If you need more during the year, you can add them and true up later. If you need fewer… as discussed, you’re out of luck until renewal. In CSP, those same Microsoft 365 E5 licenses could be purchased on a monthly or annual basis through your partner.

Functionally, the service the end-users get is identical. The difference is how you’re billed and how you can adjust. In CSP, you could decide to only buy 900 licenses if 100 people leave, whereas in EA you’d still be holding 1,000 until term end.

Also, suppose a new Microsoft 365 product or add-on comes out (for example, a new advanced security add-on), as an EA customer.

In that case, you might need to amend your agreement or wait to add it at your anniversary, whereas a CSP customer could often just start a subscription for it immediately through the partner portal.

The biggest contrast often arises with Microsoft Azure (and other consumption-based services, such as Power Platform credits). Under an EA, Azure is typically handled via an upfront commitment model. When you sign the EA, you might agree to a certain Azure monetary commitment (e.g., “we commit to consume $100,000 of Azure services per year”).

This gives you the right to use up to that amount (and possibly some discount off pay-as-you-go rates), and if you exceed it, you true-up the overage at the end of the year. Some EA customers opt for a purely consumption-based model in EA as well (pay-as-you-go with quarterly billing in arrears), but even then, Microsoft often wants an annual forecast or minimum.

The EA can provide some pricing benefits for Azure in exchange for that commitment – for example, in the past, EA customers got initial discounts on Azure or at least protection from retail price changes.

However, importantly, if you under-use your Azure commitment, you might forfeit what you’ve paid (use-it-or-lose-it). That means if you committed to $100k and only spent $80k, you still pay $100k.

With Azure via CSP, there is no upfront commitment required. It works on a pure pay-as-you-go basis: you use Azure services and your partner bills you monthly for exactly what you used (often at the same rates Microsoft publishes on Azure’s website). If you turn off VMs or scale down resources, your bill goes down accordingly the next month.

You won’t be stuck with unused monetary credit. CSP also allows purchasing Azure Reserved Instances and other cost-saving options, similar to EA, often with the same discounts for things like 1-year or 3-year reserved commitments on VMs or databases — except those are optional choices you make per resource, not an all-up contractual obligation to Microsoft.

Essentially, CSP turns Azure into a utility bill: truly consumption-based. This is great for unpredictable workloads or when you’re still ramping up your Azure adoption and don’t want to over-commit. The trade-off is that, without a large commitment, you might not get special pricing beyond any general discounts Microsoft offers.

Some CSP partners might give a small percentage discount on Azure consumption as part of their value proposition. Still, you’re generally looking at paying list price for Azure in CSP (which, post-2025 changes, is often what an EA customer will pay too, since Microsoft unified the pricing).

One more angle: on-premises vs. cloud mix. EAs cover on-prem software and cloud under one umbrella. If you still need a lot of on-prem licenses (like Windows Server, SQL Server, Office Standard, etc.), an EA can bundle those with Software Assurance (SA) benefits. CSP primarily focuses on subscriptions and cloud services, though Microsoft has enabled CSP partners to sell perpetual licenses, too.

If you require traditional licenses with SA, EA has historically been the route (SA benefits like version upgrades, training vouchers, and hybrid use rights are tied to volume licensing agreements).

Now there are subscription versions of some on-prem products in CSP (for example, Windows Server Subscription or SQL Server Subscription,) which mimic SA benefits on an annual subscription basis. Depending on your environment, you might manage to get all you need through CSP.

Still, very large enterprises with a complex mix of legacy and cloud might find EA’s all-in-one approach easier to manage for things like compliance and true-up of on-prem licenses.

On the other hand, if you’re mostly or fully cloud, CSP is perfectly capable of handling 100% of your needs and may actually align better with the cloud consumption model.

In short, both EA and CSP can provide the full suite of Microsoft cloud services, but the financial and management approach differs. EA might give you some cost predictability and bundled benefits at the cost of committing to usage levels, whereas CSP gives you on-demand flexibility with no commitments.

If your cloud usage (especially Azure) is steady and significant, you might consider whether an EA commitment discount (if available) outweighs the risk of overcommitting. If your cloud use is variable or you’re still experimenting with the cloud, CSP ensures you only pay for what you need each cycle.

Strategic Use Cases

After weighing all these factors, how do you decide which model fits your organization? The answer may depend on your organization’s size, usage patterns, and strategic goals.

Here are some strategic use cases to illustrate when an EA makes sense, when CSP shines, and when a mix might be the optimal path:

• Enterprise Agreement for large, steady enterprises: If you are a large organization with a stable or growing workforce and relatively predictable IT needs, sticking with an EA can be beneficial. Typically, these are enterprises with thousands of users, where the administrative overhead of a big agreement is manageable and the volume discounts (even as they diminish) can add up to significant savings. These organizations often value the direct relationship with Microsoft, have dedicated licensing specialists on staff, and may still be using a combination of on-prem and cloud products that the EA neatly bundles. The 3-year predictability of an EA is useful for long-term budgeting in a steady environment. For example, a corporation with 5,000 employees that expands 5% year-over-year might lock in pricing and know that it can true up annually for growth. They also might negotiate custom terms with Microsoft (like special pricing or extra benefits) given their size. In such a scenario, the EA acts as a stable backbone for their Microsoft estate.
• CSP for SMBs or organizations with fluctuating workforce: If you are a small to mid-sized business (SMB) or any organization where headcount and usage fluctuate, CSP is often the better choice. Smaller companies (say, under 500 seats or even up to 1000) may not even qualify for or easily get an EA, and even if they do, the overhead and commitment might not be worthwhile. These organizations benefit from CSP’s month-to-month flexibility — for instance, a 300-employee company that frequently uses contractors on 3-month stints can scale licenses up and down without financial penalty. Additionally, if you have a lean IT team, having a CSP partner manage your licenses and provide support can be like extending your team. CSP is also great for startups or rapidly pivoting companies that can’t accurately forecast their needs years in advance. The ability to try new Microsoft services without long commitments encourages innovation. And importantly, SMBs often find that the CSP pricing model provides clarity – you get a simple monthly bill, and if one month you reduce usage, you immediately see the cost drop. That kind of direct cause-and-effect in costs is very useful when controlling the budget in a dynamic business.
• Hybrid approach (EA + CSP) for complex or transitioning organizations: These aren’t mutually exclusive models; some organizations choose to mix and match EA and CSP to optimize results. One common strategy is to maintain an EA for the “core” or base load of stable needs, and use CSP for pilot projects, overflow, or subsidiaries. For example, a multinational enterprise might keep an EA to cover 90% of its users (the established workforce with steady needs and on-prem licensing requirements), but for a new branch office or a recent acquisition that has 200 users, they might use CSP subscriptions for a year or two. This avoids immediately locking those new users into the EA in the mid-term and provides flexibility as the new unit is integrated. Another example is running a pilot of a new service on CSP: imagine your company wants to test Microsoft’s latest advanced security bundle with 50 users. Instead of committing those to your EA for the remainder of the term (which could be a year or more commitment), you spin them up in CSP. If the pilot succeeds and you decide it should be company-wide, you can then fold it into your EA at renewal; if it fails, you simply cancel those CSP subscriptions. Some organizations also use CSP as a pressure valve for seasonal bursts – say you have an EA for normal operations but you need an extra 200 temporary licenses for a special project; rather than amending the EA, you just get them via CSP for a few months. Hybrid models can deliver the best of both worlds, but they do require careful management to ensure you’re not double-licensing or creating confusion. It’s wise to work closely with both Microsoft and a CSP partner in such scenarios to maintain clarity on who is covering what. Microsoft’s licensing rules allow this kind of coexistence, and many customers take advantage of it to remain agile.

Ultimately, the strategic choice comes down to aligning the licensing model with your business model. Large, steady enterprises may prioritize negotiated discounts and consolidated oversight through an EA.

Smaller or more fluid organizations will prioritize the agility and lower commitment risk of CSP. And some will blend the two to meet specific needs.

The key is that you don’t have to follow Microsoft’s default recommendation blindly—you can craft a licensing strategy that serves your organization’s interests first.

Five Expert Recommendations

Making the final decision between staying with an EA or switching to CSP (or a combination of both) requires careful consideration.

Here are five expert recommendations to ensure you make a well-informed, strategic choice for your Microsoft licensing:

• Benchmark the 3–5 year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) under both models: Don’t just look at the next year—project your licensing costs over the next three to five years with each option. Include all relevant costs: license fees, expected growth or reductions in users, support contracts (for EA), and any partner fees (for CSP). This long-term TCO analysis will highlight which model is more cost-effective for your organization’s trajectory. Sometimes an EA’s fixed pricing shows its strength in year 3 when Microsoft’s cloud prices might have risen, or conversely, CSP might save money if you expect to scale down in later years. Lay the scenarios side by side to see the financial outcome before deciding.
• Factor in seasonal, flexible, or contractor-heavy usage patterns: Usage variability is a big driver of cost differences between EA and CSP. Be sure to account for any seasonal workforce, project-based contractors, or business fluctuations in your planning. If your workforce ramps up and down, assign a dollar value to the potential savings CSP flexibility would provide (e.g., “we can drop 100 licenses for 3 months, saving X dollars”). Conversely, if you’re pretty confident that your user count will only increase (and never dip) over the term, factor that into the EA scenario; this reflection ensures that you choose a model that fits not just your average usage, but also your highs and lows.
• Assess the CSP partner’s support and service maturity: If you are considering moving to CSP, remember that the experience is only as good as the partner delivering it. Do your due diligence on potential CSP partners. Investigate their support capabilities, client references, and additional services. Key questions to ask include: What is their support response time, and is it 24/7? Do they offer proactive guidance (like license optimization or regular review meetings)? How easy is their management portal to use? Choosing a mature, reliable partner can make the difference between a smooth transition with great service and a frustrating one. Similarly, if you plan to stay with an EA, consider what support system you need—will you buy Microsoft Unified Support or lean on a partner for help? Make sure your support needs are covered in either case.
• Consider a hybrid licensing strategy for optimization: It’s not always an all-or-nothing decision. Many organizations find an equilibrium by combining both models. For instance, you might renew an EA for your stable core licenses (ensuring you keep any enterprise-wide discounts for those) but simultaneously engage a CSP for new or flexible needs. This approach can optimize costs and flexibility, as long as it’s well-managed. If you go hybrid, define clear guidelines: which situations trigger using CSP versus the EA? You might use CSP for any net-new services during the EA term or for any groups under a certain size. Plan it out so everyone internally knows how to acquire licenses optimally. Microsoft’s rules allow this, and at renewal time, you’ll have data to decide if you want to fold more into the EA or shift more to CSP.
• Leverage CSP as a negotiation tool to improve your EA deal: Even if you ultimately prefer the familiarity of an EA, don’t approach the renewal negotiation as a formality. Microsoft is well aware that customers have the CSP option now — and that CSP is increasingly viable for even large enterprises. Use this to your advantage. Engage with one or two CSP partners and get quotes for your licensing needs; understand what the transition would entail. Then, when sitting down with Microsoft (or your reseller) for the EA renewal, you can honestly say, “We have alternatives, and we’re prepared to move to a CSP model if the EA proposal isn’t compelling.” This mindset can encourage Microsoft to sharpen its pencil on pricing and terms. They may offer concessions such as additional discounts, price holds, or other benefits to keep your business on the EA.
  In some cases, Microsoft might propose a smaller EA supplemented by CSP-like terms (via their new commerce experiences) to address your flexibility concerns. The point is, by demonstrating that you’re an informed customer with options, you shift some leverage to your side. Even beyond pricing, you might negotiate things like a shorter EA term or add-on services (training vouchers, extra support) by indicating that you’re not afraid to go the CSP route. Microsoft’s default push is often to keep you on an EA, but if they see you’ve done your homework on CSP, you’ll likely get a better EA offer or at least the satisfaction that you chose the model from a position of strength rather than inertia.

By following these recommendations, you’ll be taking a strategic, informed approach to the EA vs. CSP decision. The right answer isn’t the same for every organization – it hinges on your size, your usage patterns, your internal capabilities, and how much flexibility or predictability you need.

In 2025, with Microsoft’s licensing landscape evolving, the best approach is a proactive one: evaluate all options, negotiate hard, and align your licensing strategy with your business strategy. Whether you stay with an Enterprise Agreement, switch entirely to a Cloud Solution Provider, or use a mix of both, make sure it’s a conscious choice that serves your organization’s interests first.

A little extra analysis and negotiation now can pay off with substantial savings and agility over the next few years.

Enjoy the empowerment that comes with taking control of your Microsoft licensing journey, rather than just accepting the status quo – your CFO will thank you, and so will your future self when you have the flexibility you need.

Read about our Microsoft Negotiation Services

Do you want to know more about our Microsoft Services?

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

Email *

Company

Message *

Submit

Fredrik Filipsson

Fredrik Filipsson brings two decades of Oracle license management experience, including a nine-year tenure at Oracle and 11 years in Oracle license consulting. His expertise extends across leading IT corporations like IBM, enriching his profile with a broad spectrum of software and cloud projects. Filipsson's proficiency encompasses IBM, SAP, Microsoft, and Salesforce platforms, alongside significant involvement in Microsoft Copilot and AI initiatives, improving organizational efficiency.

See Full Bio