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

Microsoft EA vs. Microsoft Customer Agreement

Introduction – EA or MCA? The New Microsoft Licensing Question

If your Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) is up for renewal in 2025, you may be wondering whether to stick with an EA or switch to the newer Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA). Microsoft is nudging many mid-market and cloud-first customers toward the MCA model, prompting a strategic choice.

The stakes are high: it’s a trade-off between the flexibility to scale services on demand versus the pricing power and predictability of a big-volume contract.

In this article, we’ll break down the differences between EA and MCA, and help you decide which approach is right for your organization. Read our comprehensive guide, Microsoft Licensing Agreements Comparison: EA vs CSP vs MCA.

Enterprise Agreement (EA) Overview

An Enterprise Agreement (EA) is Microsoft’s traditional volume licensing contract for large organizations.

It’s a three-year agreement (fixed term) that requires a minimum of 500 user or device “seats” to qualify.

Under an EA, you commit to an enterprise-wide licensing of core products (like Windows, Office 365/Microsoft 365, etc.), and Software Assurance (SA) is included for all licenses.

This means you’re standardizing Microsoft software across your whole company for at least three years under one unified contract.

Pros of EA:

• Volume Discounts & Lower Unit Costs: Because you’re buying software for hundreds or thousands of users at once, EAs offer volume-based pricing. At larger scales, organizations often negotiate 15–25% (or more) off Microsoft’s list prices. The more you buy, the bigger the potential discount per license.
• Price Protection for 3 Years: The per-user or per-product pricing you negotiate is locked in for the full term. Even if Microsoft raises its prices next year, your rates stay the same, providing budget stability and predictable costs over the three years.
• Negotiation Room & Custom Terms: An EA is a privately negotiated contract. Big customers have leverage to negotiate better terms, such as additional discounts for strategic projects, payment schedules, or legal protections (e.g., more favorable audit clauses or liability caps) that aren’t available in off-the-shelf agreements.
• Comprehensive Coverage: EAs can cover both cloud services and on-premises software under one deal. This is great for hybrid environments – you can include Office 365 subscriptions, Azure credits, and traditional licenses (Windows, SQL Server, etc.) all in the same agreement, simplifying management.

Cons of EA:

• Long-Term Lock-In: You’re committing to (and paying for) a set number of licenses for three years. You cannot reduce your license count mid-term if your needs drop. (At best, you might be able to drop a small amount at anniversaries for certain subscriptions, but generally you’re locked into at least your initial quantity until renewal.)
• Inflexible if You Downsize: Because of that lock-in, an EA carries the risk of overpaying for unused licenses if your organization’s headcount or usage decreases during the term. You can only adjust downwards when the EA renewal comes up (typically once every three years).
• Complex Contract Management: Managing an EA can be heavy. There are annual true-up processes to report any increases in usage (and pay for those new licenses retroactively). Tracking compliance and handling the paperwork of a large EA requires diligent contract management and often true-up negotiations each year. It’s not as simple as clicking “reduce 10 licenses” in a portal.
• Minimum Size Requirement: If your organization is below 500 users/devices, an EA isn’t even an option. And even if you’re just above that, you might find the administrative overhead not worth it unless you have significantly higher scale.

Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) Overview

The Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) is Microsoft’s newer, “evergreen” digital contract for purchasing cloud services. Unlike the EA, the MCA has no minimum seat requirement and no fixed term – it’s not a 3-year contract, but rather an open-ended agreement you accept once (often via a portal) and then buy services as needed.

It’s a cloud-first model, primarily used for Azure consumption, Microsoft 365 subscriptions, Dynamics 365, and other online services.

Billing under MCA is typically subscription-based or pay-as-you-go (for Azure), meaning you pay for what you use on a monthly or annual basis without a long-term commitment to a specific license count.

Pros of MCA:

• Flexibility to Scale Up or Down: With an MCA, you can add or remove licenses and services as needed. If you hire new employees or start a new project, add subscriptions on the fly. If you downsize or a project ends, you can reduce licenses when their term is up (e.g., let monthly/annual subscriptions expire). You’re not locked into a high-watermark count.
• No Long-Term Lock-In: There’s no three-year commitment. The MCA is open-ended and can be canceled or modified at any time (subject to the billing period of your subscriptions). This greatly reduces the risk of being stuck in an outdated deal – you have the freedom to switch plans, adjust services, or even move to a different provider without waiting years for a contract to end.
• Simplified, Quick Setup: It’s a fully digital agreement that can be accepted online without lengthy negotiations. This makes procurement faster and simpler – no drawn-out contract redlines. Microsoft designed MCA to be user-friendly: sign once digitally, then just add the products you need.
• Ideal for Cloud-Only Needs: For organizations that are “all-in” on cloud (Azure infrastructure, Office 365, etc.) and don’t need to buy traditional on-prem licenses with Software Assurance, the MCA covers all cloud purchases in one place. You get a single consolidated bill for your Azure and Microsoft 365 usage, making cost tracking easier in some cases.

Cons of MCA:

• Limited Discounts (Closer to List Price): Flexibility comes at a price – literally. Under an MCA, you generally pay standard rates for licenses and Azure consumption. There aren’t built-in volume discount tiers like the EA. Any discounts are small and usually tied to specific promotions or very large spending commitments. In other words, your per-user or per-unit cost is likely higher than it would be under a well-negotiated EA for a large organization.
• Little Negotiation Leverage: The MCA is mostly a take-it-or-leave-it standard contract. Microsoft doesn’t typically customize the terms for you or bake in special pricing concessions, unless you are an exceptionally large spender. Mid-sized customers on MCA often have minimal room to negotiate beyond maybe some Azure consumption credits or trial extensions. The terms and conditions are Microsoft’s standard ones, which tend to favor Microsoft.
• No Software Assurance Included: While EAs bundle in Software Assurance benefits, the MCA does not automatically include those perks (like upgrade rights or training vouchers). If you still need things like Software Assurance for on-premises software, you’d have to purchase those separately through other licensing programs (which can complicate your setup).
• Short-Term Price Exposure: Because you’re not locked in long-term, prices can change more frequently. Microsoft can (and does) raise subscription prices periodically, and those increases will hit you whenever your short subscription term (monthly or annual) renews. In an EA, you’d be shielded from price hikes for 3 years, but with MCA, you have to be prepared for pricing adjustments in the cloud marketplace.

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

EA vs. MCA – Cost and Pricing

One of the biggest factors in choosing between an EA and an MCA is cost. How do the pricing structures differ?

Under an Enterprise Agreement, pricing is typically negotiated upfront based on the size of your deployment. Microsoft historically had pricing levels (A, B, C, D) where larger seat counts automatically got better unit prices.

In 2025, Microsoft is phasing out some automatic volume discounts for cloud services, but the principle remains: with an EA, large customers can negotiate substantial discounts off the list price.

It’s not uncommon for mid-sized enterprises to negotiate on the order of 15-25% off, and the largest enterprises even more, on licenses compared to pay-as-you-go rates. Moreover, EA pricing is fixed for the 3-year term, insulating you from Microsoft’s annual price increases.

However, an EA may require an upfront financial commitment or annual spend commitment.

For example, some EAs involve an upfront Azure monetary commitment (often called an Azure prepayment) that you agree to, which gives you a discount. Still, you pay that amount whether you use it fully or not.

The Microsoft Customer Agreement uses a consumption-based pricing model.

There are no preset volume discount levels under MCA – the price for one license is the same as the price for one thousand licenses, unless you negotiate something separately.

Typically, MCA customers pay the published catalog price for each cloud service or license. If you buy Azure services via MCA, you’re paying the standard Azure rate (though you can still optimize costs through Azure Reserved Instances or Savings Plans, which are available in any model).

For large spends, Microsoft might offer incentives like an Azure consumption commitment discount or account-level credits, but these are bespoke and not as deep as EA volume discounts.

Pricing can fluctuate with an MCA: if Microsoft changes the price of a service, your cost will reflect that once your current subscription period ends or your consumption is billed. The upside is you only pay for what you actually use.

If you drop 100 users, you stop paying for those 100 licenses at the next billing cycle, which could offset the lack of discount, because under an EA, you would’ve paid for those unused licenses anyway.

To illustrate the cost differences, here’s a simplified comparison:

In short, an EA can yield a lower per-unit cost if you’re a larger organization and can negotiate well, but you risk over-allocating and paying for unused capacity.

The MCA tends to have a higher per-unit cost (no big discounts), but you pay only for what you need and can avoid the waste of shelfware.

When evaluating cost, it’s wise to do a 3- to 5-year total cost of ownership (TCO) projection for both scenarios – sometimes the EA’s discounts win out, and other times the MCA’s flexibility saves money overall.

EA vs. MCA – Flexibility and Risk

Flexibility is where the EA and MCA differ dramatically, and it ties directly into risk management for your IT budget and operations.

• License Count Flexibility: The EA model is rigid – you start with a certain number of licenses and can only adjust upward during the term. If you add more employees or need more licenses, you report those additions in an annual true-up and pay for the increase retroactively. But you generally cannot reduce your license count until the EA comes up for renewal. This lack of downward flexibility means if your organization shrinks or you want to drop a certain product, you’re stuck paying for it until the EA period ends. The MCA, on the other hand, is highly flexible – you can increase or decrease licenses with relative ease. For example, you might have 1000 Microsoft 365 licenses one month and scale down to 800 the next month if your workforce contracts, only paying for the 800 in the following billing cycle. Similarly, Azure consumption under MCA can be ramped up or down dynamically; if a project ends, you simply stop consuming, and that cost goes away.
• Commitment Risk: With an EA, the risk lies in over-commitment. You’re committing to a multi-year usage of Microsoft products. If your business direction changes, or if you merge/divest and suddenly need far fewer licenses, an EA doesn’t let you out easily – you’ve already signed on the dotted line. You might end up wasting budget on unused software (or scramble to find ways to use those licenses elsewhere in your org). With an MCA, there’s no long-term commitment, so the risk of over-commitment is low. You can course-correct quickly if you bought too many licenses or if a cloud service isn’t needed anymore. The flip side is predictability risk: under MCA, because you’re not committed, Microsoft is also not committed to holding your price or terms. If your usage unexpectedly skyrockets (say your Azure usage doubles because of a new project), your costs will spike accordingly, and you don’t have a pre-negotiated cap. Similarly, new spending under MCA is at whatever the going rate is, which could be higher next year.
• Operational Agility: Organizations with highly fluctuating headcounts or workloads will value the MCA’s agility. Seasonal businesses, companies in fast-changing markets, or those undergoing reorganizations or acquisitions can scale their Microsoft costs in near-real time with the business under an MCA. In contrast, the EA’s once-a-year true-up is fine for steady growth but cannot react quickly to downsizing or shifting software adoption. If you plan to, for example, move a chunk of users from Microsoft 365 to another platform mid-term, you can’t reduce your EA count; with MCA, you could simply not renew those users’ subscriptions next month.
• Hybrid Environment Flexibility: Another aspect of flexibility is in mixing cloud and on-prem. An EA can bundle on-prem licenses (with Software Assurance) plus cloud subscriptions – which is flexible in a hybrid IT sense, but contractually, you’re still locked in. The MCA is purely cloud-focused (for on-prem software, you’d need separate arrangements), so it’s flexible for cloud resources but not a vehicle for on-prem licensing. If you have significant on-premise needs with SA benefits, an EA (or a hybrid approach) might be necessary to maintain those, since MCA alone won’t cover traditional licenses with SA.

In summary, an EA emphasizes stability and predictability, but with rigidity that can become a cost risk if you need to downsize.

The MCA emphasizes adaptability and on-demand usage, reducing the risk of overpaying for unused resources but introducing some risk of cost variability.

Contract Terms and Negotiation Leverage

Another key difference is how much you can negotiate and customize the agreement itself:

• Enterprise Agreement Negotiation: With an EA, you typically work with Microsoft (and often a reseller or licensing partner) to hammer out a custom deal. Everything is on the table to some degree – pricing, payment terms, contract clauses, and special provisions. If your spend is significant, you have leverage to push for concessions. For example, enterprise customers often negotiate custom discount percentages, lock in favorable renewal options, or include add-ons like extra support hours or training. They might negotiate legal terms as well, such as clarifying audit procedures (e.g. a longer notice period for audits, or limitations on scope), data residency commitments, or liability caps that are more favorable than Microsoft’s standard agreement. Essentially, the EA can be tailored to your organization’s needs if you have the clout – it’s a bilateral agreement. This negotiation is a time-consuming process, but it’s where a savvy procurement team can extract a lot of value and risk mitigation that wouldn’t exist in an off-the-shelf contract.
• MCA Standardization: The Microsoft Customer Agreement is largely a standard form contract. It’s designed to be the same for everyone (especially small and mid-sized customers) and is accepted digitally without changes. Negotiation leverage under MCA is minimal – Microsoft is not going to individually tailor the fine print for a typical mid-market client. The terms and conditions are pre-defined, and you either accept them or you don’t get the services. There are no built-in opportunities to negotiate things like an exit clause or special audit protections. Only if you are a very large customer (approaching enterprise scale but perhaps trying out MCA) might Microsoft consider a custom rider or side agreement; even that is uncommon. So, with MCA, you essentially give up the chance to negotiate contract terms in exchange for convenience and speed.
• Risk Management in Contract Terms: Since the EA is negotiable, customers concerned about risks (financial or legal) often prefer EAs so they can include provisions such as extended termination rights, non-performance penalties, or more favorable liability and indemnity terms. For instance, if you want the option to terminate some services early if your business is sold, you could attempt to negotiate that into an EA. In an MCA, there’s no mechanism to add such custom exit rights – you play by Microsoft’s rules. Similarly, if Microsoft’s standard liability cap in the MCA is too low for your comfort, you can’t change it; in an EA, you might negotiate a higher cap or carve-outs for certain damages. In short, an EA offers more opportunities for “protections” and proactive risk mitigation through tailored terms. The MCA largely assumes you accept Microsoft’s standard risk allocation.
• Negotiation Leverage on Pricing: In an EA negotiation, one leverage point customers use is competitive pressure or alternative sourcing. For example, you might hint that if Microsoft doesn’t come through with a better discount, you’ll scale back usage or consider third-party alternatives. Or you might leverage a timing issue (like the end of the quarter/year for Microsoft) to get a better deal. With MCA’s fixed pricing, that kind of haggling isn’t really possible on a per-customer basis. Microsoft’s sales teams have less flexibility to offer you a unique price under MCA aside from recommending some cost-saving measures like Azure savings plans. So, if your organization highly values the art of deal-making and squeezing out the best financial terms, an EA is the playing field for that, not MCA.

Use Case Scenarios

To ground this comparison in real-world contexts, let’s consider a few hypothetical companies and which route might suit them best:

• Company A: 5,000 employees, hybrid cloud/on-prem environment. This sizable firm runs a mix of on-premises software (Windows, SQL Server) and cloud services (Azure, Microsoft 365). They benefit from a unified contract covering all Microsoft assets. Best fit: EA. With 5,000 seats, they have the scale to secure significant volume discounts and lock in pricing. They can include Windows and Office licensing with Software Assurance in the EA, which simplifies the management of their hybrid setup. The EA’s 3-year term provides budget certainty for their large user base. While MCA could technically handle their cloud subscriptions, it would not cover on-prem licenses well and offers no SA benefits – splitting into multiple agreements would add complexity. Company A values the discounts and one-stop management of an EA, and their user count is fairly stable, so the 3-year lock-in is low risk.
• Company B: 800 employees, 100% cloud-centric. This mid-market organization utilizes Microsoft 365 for all users and operates its entire infrastructure in Azure. They have no on-premise Microsoft products to worry about. Best fit: MCA. Although they qualify for an EA (being above 500 seats), Microsoft’s recent policies might actually encourage them to go MCA or a CSP route, since they’re under ~2,400 seats and have only online services. By choosing MCA, Company B gains maximal flexibility – if they scale up or down, they adjust licenses accordingly. They skip the drawn-out EA negotiation and simply pay per user per month. While they may pay close to list price for those 800 M365 subscriptions, the difference in discount versus an EA for 800 seats might be modest, and it’s outweighed by the freedom to drop costs if their needs change. The administrative overhead is also lower: they don’t need a licensing specialist to manage an EA; they can handle things in Microsoft’s admin portal or with a partner. For a cloud-only mid-sized company that isn’t guaranteed to grow consistently, MCA is often sufficient and simpler.
• Company C: 2,000 employees today, but downsizing is expected. Suppose this company anticipates a reorganization or spinoff that will reduce headcount to 1,500 next year. They’re considering whether to renew an EA. Best fit: MCA (for flexibility). If they sign a new 3-year EA at 2,000 users, they’ll be stuck paying for 2,000 licenses even after dropping to 1,500 users – wasting budget on 500 unused licenses for the remainder of the term. Instead, by moving to an MCA, they can right-size their licensing as the downsizing happens. They might start with 2,000 M365 subscriptions and then systematically reduce 500 of them at renewal time to match the new headcount, avoiding unnecessary costs. Yes, they’ll lose some discount that an EA might have given, but they’ll save more by not paying for ghost users. In this scenario, flexibility to reduce spend is far more important than a volume discount. MCA protects Company C from being over-committed during a contraction. (Alternatively, Company C could consider a shorter-term arrangement or even an EA with a special clause, but those are complex to negotiate – the straightforward solution is MCA.)

These scenarios illustrate that the right choice really hinges on your organization’s size, growth trajectory, and mix of needs.

Stable or growing large enterprises lean toward EA, while smaller, fluctuating, or cloud-only organizations lean toward MCA.

Hybrid Approaches

It’s not always an all-or-nothing decision. Some organizations adopt a hybrid licensing approach, using both an EA and an MCA (or CSP) in parallel for different parts of their Microsoft portfolio:

For example, a company might maintain an EA for their core user licenses (Windows, Office/M365, EMS suites, etc.) to get the best pricing on those thousands of seats, but use the MCA for Azure consumption.

This can happen because Azure usage can be very dynamic and unpredictable; rather than locking into a huge 3-year Azure commitment in the EA, the company opts to buy Azure through the flexible MCA, scaling resources up and down as needed. Meanwhile, the stable Microsoft 365 user base stays under EA for cost efficiency.

Another scenario: an organization could sign an EA for their headquarters and main workforce, but let smaller divisions or new acquisitions buy via MCA if they’re not ready to be rolled into the enterprise agreement yet.

From a negotiation standpoint, a hybrid strategy can be a clever play. Demonstrating to Microsoft that you’re willing to split your spend can put pressure on them to offer better terms. If Microsoft knows you might put, say, Azure with a CSP reseller or under an MCA instead of in the EA, they may sharpen their pencil on the EA renewal to “keep” that Azure business in-house.

Conversely, you can pilot the MCA in a limited way as a bargaining chip: show that you have an easy alternative to the EA, which might motivate Microsoft to make the EA more attractive to retain your whole account.

Be careful, though, managing two agreements means keeping an eye on two sets of terms and possibly working with two different account management structures (one direct with Microsoft for MCA, one through a reseller/LSP for EA).

Still, some enterprises find an optimal balance (for cost and flexibility) by blending models in a way that leverages the strengths of each.

Microsoft’s Strategy – The Push Toward MCA

Why are we even having this debate now? In large part because Microsoft itself is steering customers in a new direction. Traditionally, the Enterprise Agreement was the go-to for any organization of significant size.

However, Microsoft’s licensing strategy in 2025 signals a shift.

For organizations with roughly below 2,400 seats (what Microsoft calls “Level A” in volume licensing), especially if those customers are primarily cloud subscribers, Microsoft is de-emphasizing the EA option.

In fact, new or renewing customers in that range are often being told to consider the Microsoft Customer Agreement or the Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) program instead.

Microsoft has even established policies where, if a sub-2,400-seat EA customer isn’t also purchasing some on-premises software, they won’t renew the EA and will instead encourage the customer to transition to MCA/CSP.

This is a clear push to move mid-market and even some smaller enterprises to the newer purchasing model.

Why is Microsoft pushing the MCA? A few likely reasons:

• Streamlined Sales Process: The MCA is a standardized digital agreement. It’s easier for Microsoft to manage at scale – no lengthy negotiations, fewer legal resources per deal, and a more cookie-cutter approach. This means less overhead and faster deals for Microsoft.
• Higher Revenue per Customer: With the EA’s volume discounts off the table for many mid-sized clients, Microsoft can potentially earn more revenue because those customers pay closer to list prices under an MCA. In short, Microsoft sacrifices some customer lock-in but gains a higher margin on cloud services.
• Cloud-First, Always Current: The MCA keeps customers on the latest programs and pricing structures. Microsoft can update terms centrally. It ensures customers are on the “new commerce” platform, which Microsoft can evolve quickly. EAs, by contrast, might have customers clinging to legacy entitlements or on-prem software because of the contract’s flexibility to mix old and new.
• Reduce Dependency on Resellers: Enterprise Agreements traditionally involve a Licensing Solution Provider (LSP) or reseller, who helps negotiate and then manages the EA (and gets a cut). Microsoft’s direct MCA model can, in some cases, bypass the reseller, meaning Microsoft deals more directly with the customer and potentially keeps more of the pie. (However, MCA can also be executed via partners in a CSP-like fashion, so it’s not always direct – but it’s part of Microsoft’s “modern commerce” framework that gives them more control.)
• Uniform Terms: By standardizing agreements, Microsoft can enforce certain favorable terms universally – like specific data use rights, audit provisions, etc. – without having them negotiated away by each large customer’s legal team. Over time, this could reduce Microsoft’s risk and increase consistency.

What does this trend mean for you as a buyer? It means you shouldn’t just passively accept whatever model Microsoft steers you toward. Microsoft’s preference might not align with your best interests. If you’re a mid-market customer, you might find Microsoft eager to transition you to an MCA – but you need to evaluate the impact on your costs and flexibility.

Your negotiation leverage could be reduced if you move to an MCA without preparation, because you lose the opportunity to negotiate a bespoke deal.

On the other hand, if an EA truly no longer makes sense for your size or if Microsoft simply won’t offer one without onerous conditions, you should be ready to maximize the value within the MCA framework (such as leveraging partners for value-added services, using cost-optimization tools, etc.).

The key is awareness: Microsoft’s push to MCA is about their strategy; you should make sure it aligns with your strategy.

Five Expert Recommendations

Finally, here are five expert tips for any organization evaluating EA vs MCA in 2025:

1. Assess Your User Count and Growth Trajectory: Look hard at your current and projected number of users (or devices) over the next few years. If you anticipate relatively stable or growing numbers, an EA’s fixed commitment might be fine. If you expect significant fluctuations or uncertainty, the flexibility of MCA can save you from over-committing. The size and stability of your workforce or cloud consumption are foundational factors in this decision.
2. Map Out Your Azure vs. M365 (and On-Prem) Spend: Break down where your Microsoft dollars go. Are you spending mostly on Microsoft 365 licenses for users, on Azure consumption, or on on-premises software? If the bulk is in Azure and it’s highly variable, MCA (or CSP) might align better with that cloud consumption model. If most spending is predictable per-user subscriptions (and especially if you still require on-prem/SA benefits), an EA could align better. A mix may be appropriate – for example, EA for Microsoft 365, MCA for Azure. Understanding the composition of your spend is key to choosing the optimal agreement.
3. If You’re Enterprise-Scale, Leverage Your Clout in EA Negotiations: Larger enterprises (generally thousands of seats and up) should strongly consider renewing or signing an EA – but don’t accept the first offer. Use your size as leverage to negotiate protections into the EA: push for things like the ability to true-down certain subscriptions at anniversary, caps on price increases if you grow beyond projections, or even an option to carve out a portion of services if needed. Also, negotiate the discounts aggressively – Microsoft will still often give significant discretionary discounts to retain big accounts. In short, if you go the EA route, maximize the advantages it’s supposed to offer (discounts, custom terms, support, etc.).
4. If You’re Mid-Market, Weigh MCA’s Flexibility vs. Its Higher Unit Costs: Mid-sized organizations (say 500 to a few thousand seats) are in the gray zone. You might get some discount benefit from an EA, but you’ll also endure its inflexibility. On the other hand, MCA will keep you nimble, but it might increase your per-license spending. Carefully quantify the cost difference: what’s the % discount you’d likely get in an EA, and what does that save you per year? Are those savings worth the loss of flexibility? Often for mid-market firms, the math leans toward MCA unless you are very stable and can negotiate a really strong EA deal. But each case is different – make an informed choice rather than just following Microsoft’s suggestion blindly.
5. Always Benchmark and Project Your 3-5 Year Total Cost: Before committing to either option, do a side-by-side financial model. Include all relevant factors: license/subscription costs, potential EA discounts, likely growth or reduction in usage, Software Assurance costs (if any), support costs, etc. Look at the total 3-year or 5-year cost of an EA (with its fixed commitments and discounts) versus an MCA model (with its pay-as-you-go flexibility). Also factor in intangibles, such as the value of price lock-in versus the value of being able to adjust costs if needed. This long-term view will help you identify which option truly offers the better value for your situation. It will also prepare you with data-driven arguments in negotiations with Microsoft or vendors. In essence, don’t just look at year one – look at the full horizon of the agreement and beyond.

By following these recommendations, you’ll be equipped to make a buyer-first decision on Microsoft licensing.

Whether you choose the traditional EA, the flexible MCA, or a creative mix of both, the key is aligning the agreement with your organization’s needs and ensuring Microsoft’s licensing strategy works for you – not the other way around.

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