Microsoft EA for Cloud-First
Executive Summary: As organizations adopt a cloud-first strategy, relying primarily on Azure and Microsoft 365 services, they must reevaluate the value of a traditional Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA).
This article examines whether an EA is justified when most of your spending is on cloud subscriptions and usage.
We discuss the cost implications, flexibility trade-offs, and alternative licensing options for cloud-centric enterprises.
The goal is to help CIOs and IT leaders determine if the EA’s volume discounts and commitments make sense in a cloud-first world, or if newer models (like CSP or Microsoft Customer Agreements) offer a better fit for agility and cost optimization.
Read how to negotiate your Microsoft EA.
The Rise of Cloud-First and Its Impact on Licensing
Cloud-First Strategy Defined:
A “cloud-first” organization prioritizes cloud solutions over on-premises infrastructure. This means the bulk of IT spend goes to services like Microsoft Azure (for infrastructure, platforms, data services) and Microsoft 365 (for productivity and collaboration), rather than traditional software licenses for on-site servers or desktop software.
Many organizations might have minimal on-prem footprint, perhaps just some networking gear and legacy systems, with everything else delivered as a service.
This shift has profound implications for software licensing. Companies consume resources flexibly, usage-based instead of buying perpetual licenses and long-term contracts.
Traditional EA in a Cloud Context:
The Microsoft Enterprise Agreement was originally designed in an era of Windows, Office, and server CALs, where enterprises would commit to large deployments and stick with them for years. It bundles software and support in a 3-year contract, ideal for predictability and standardization.
However, in a cloud-first scenario, an EA’s strengths (long-term commitment, fixed pricing, enterprise-wide standardization) can be weaknesses. Cloud services evolve rapidly, usage can spike or drop unexpectedly, and new services (like AI or DevOps tools in Azure) might be trialed for a few months and discarded.
The EA’s fixed nature (you commit to a set base of users or a monetary Azure commitment) can hamper innovation and cost optimization. You might be hesitant to try a new service if it means potentially locking into more spending.
Moreover, cloud-first organizations benefit simply by using cloud services outside an EA. For example, if you buy Microsoft 365 on a month-to-month basis, you inherently have the latest version (one of the things SA provided in an EA).
If you use Azure, its pricing (outside an EA) is pay-as-you-go with no upfront fee, meaning you only pay for what you consume.
Read Top Microsoft EA Negotiation Mistakes and How to Avoid Them.
EA vs. Modern Licensing Goals:
A key question is: Does the EA help achieve cost savings and simplicity for cloud services, or does it add unnecessary complexity and cost? Historically, EAs offered volume discounts, but Microsoft’s pricing model for cloud has narrowed some of those advantages.
For instance, Microsoft might price Azure similarly across the board, with big discounts only coming from reserved instances/savings plans (which anyone can use, EA or not) or from large custom deals.
If your Azure spend is, say, $500k/year, an EA might give you a slight discount or some free credits, but you might be able to get nearly the same effective rate by using Azure’s publicly available Savings Plans (which give up to ~15-20% off for a one or 3-year commit on specific resources, regardless of EA).
Similarly, Microsoft 365 plans have set pricing; outside of an EA, you might pay list price, but inside an EA, you might get 5-10% off if you’re big. The question becomes: is that single-digit percentage saving worth the loss of flexibility?
Read Exiting Microsoft EA: Strategy, Licensing Impact, and Transition Paths.
Cost Considerations: Predictability vs. Pay-As-You-Go
One of the biggest arguments favoring an EA has been cost predictability and potential savings.
Let’s break down the cost factors for a cloud-first organization:
- Upfront Commit vs. On-Demand: With an EA, you often make an upfront financial commitment, especially for Azure consumption. For example, you might commit to spending $2 million over 3 years on Azure. In return, Microsoft could grant a discount on Azure services or provide some free Azure credits. This can work out if your cloud usage is steady or growing consistently. But if usage is unpredictable, an upfront commitment can backfire – under-consuming means wasted budget (you paid for capacity you didn’t use). Over-consuming means you’ll pay extra beyond your commitment (potentially at a higher rate for the overage). Pay-as-you-go (via CSP or direct) means you pay exactly for what you use each month, no more, no less. This granular control is crucial for organizations practicing FinOps (cloud financial management) to avoid waste. Essentially, the EA is a fixed subscription model, whereas the cloud-first ethos favors a utility model.
- Volume Discounts: EA Level discounts provide lower unit costs as user counts rise. A cloud-first org with thousands of users could be at Level B, C, or D, seeing notable discounts on Microsoft 365. Outside the EA, those users would be at the list price unless other arrangements are made. However, consider the difference: If Microsoft 365 E5 is $57/user/month list and you got 10% off in EA, you paid $51.30. Without EA, a CSP partner could offer it at $55 (absorbing some margin). The per-user difference might be $3.70. Now multiply by 1000 users = $3,700/month difference. If those 1000 users truly remain constant, EA yields savings. But if a cloud-first strategy allows you to run with, say, 900 licenses most of the year and only 1000 during a peak season, the flexibility to reduce 100 licenses for part of the year could save more than $3,700/month during that period, offsetting the discount benefit so, volume discounts matter, but only if you are going to fully utilize the volume continuously.
- Support Costs: Enterprises often overlook the cost of Premier/Unified Support tied to an EA. Microsoft’s Unified Support is typically priced as a percentage of your overall license spend (often 10% or more of your EA value annually). A cloud-first company on an EA might pay hundreds of thousands for support. In contrast, the partner’s support is included if you shift to CSP. Or if you go directly without an EA, you might choose a lower-tier support or none if your team can manage minor issues. This is a significant cost-saving outside the EA. Cloud services tend to have fewer support incidents than on-prem software (since Microsoft manages a lot), so some cloud-first orgs opt to lean on community support or minimal support plans. Bottom line: The EA’s hidden cost is that you almost feel obliged to have Microsoft’s full support package, whereas cloud-first customers outside EA have more support model choices (and cost savings there can rival the license discounts in magnitude).
- Over-licensing and True-up: With an EA, you must true-up annually any over-usage of licenses, but you can’t true down mid-term. A cloud-first org might spin up a new team of 50 contractors for a project and give them all M365 licenses. Under EA, if this happened mid-year, you’re paying for those 50 at true-up (even if they only worked for 3 months, you often owe for a full year for any added licenses). If the project ends and those 50 are gone, under EA, you still pay through year-end and cannot reduce the count until renewal time. In a pure cloud model (monthly subscriptions), you’d pay 50 for 3 months, then drop them, paying exactly 3/12 of the annual cost for those 50, not a penny more. Cloud-first operations often involve such elastic teams and resources. Thus, avoiding over-licensing is a key cost-saving area the EA structure fights against.
The overarching theme is a trade-off: EAs favor predictability (you’ll know your bill in advance, albeit with some growth assumptions) while cloud pay-as-you-go favors optimization (you can adapt costs to actual usage).
Which is more important depends on your business priorities and financial management style. Many CFOs like the predictable bill of an EA, but if that bill includes 20% waste, the smart play might be to accept a bit more variability in exchange for trimming the fat.
To visualize the cost dynamic, consider a simple three-year scenario for a cloud service under EA vs on-demand:
Illustration: In Year 2, usage dipped – the EA cost remained flat (paid for unused capacity), whereas CSP/on-demand cost dropped in proportion to actual use. In Year 3, usage spiked – EA cost might not fully cover it (extra fees for overage), whereas CSP cost rose with usage.
This example highlights that in a cloud-first environment where usage can fluctuate, the EA keeps you on a straight line (good for stability, bad for responsiveness), whereas a pay-go model lets your costs follow the ups and downs of your needs.
Alternatives for Cloud-First Licensing (CSP, MCA, Hybrid Approaches)
If an EA isn’t the right fit, what are the alternatives for a cloud-centric org? The two main alternatives are similar to those discussed earlier: the Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) program or the Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) for direct purchasing.
Each has features beneficial to cloud consumption:
- CSP (Cloud Solution Provider): Ideal for flexibility and partner support. Under CSP, you can obtain all your Azure services and Microsoft 365 subscriptions monthly or annually. For heavy Azure users, Microsoft has even introduced an “Azure plan” under CSP that functions much like an EA monetary commitment but on a smaller, more flexible scale. Some CSP partners have an Enterprise tier specifically for larger Azure consumers, offering around a 5-15% discount on Azure unit rates if you agree to use them as your reseller (some advertise ~12% off Azure for big spenders, effectively sharing the margin/incentive Microsoft gives them). In addition, CSP partners often provide cloud management tools – for instance, cost analytics portals, alerts for overspend, etc. – which can be very valuable in a cloud-first operation.
- Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA): Microsoft’s direct buying program replaced the old Azure-only agreements. It’s click-through purchasing. For Azure, an MCA lets you operate on pay-as-you-go or set up your own Azure Commitment (you can add an Azure Spending Plan if you want to commit and save, similar to how you might under EA, but you do it directly in the portal with Microsoft). For Microsoft 365, an MCA means buying subscriptions directly from Microsoft’s commerce portal (often called the New Commerce Experience). You can do annual or monthly terms. The benefit is simplicity – no third party, and all your services are in one Microsoft-managed agreement that never expires (no 3-year cycle; it’s evergreen until you cancel). The downside: you won’t get a personal touch or potentially any discount beyond what’s publicly advertised. Large cloud-first companies, however, can sometimes negotiate an MCA with specific discounts or rebates (particularly on Azure) if they commit to a certain spend. Microsoft might not formally call it an “EA”, but practically it can resemble one without the paper overhead.
- Hybrid Licensing Strategies: Some cloud-first enterprises adopt a hybrid approach: maintain an EA for certain components while moving others to CSP. For example, a global corporation might keep an EA for Microsoft 365 (if they have 20,000 users, the discount could be significant, and they know the user count is stable). Still, they might use Azure consumption through a CSP to take advantage of agile scaling and partner services for cloud projects. Or vice versa: perhaps they keep EA just for Azure if Microsoft offered a big incentive, but buy M365 via CSP to allow decentralized management by regional offices. Microsoft licensing in 2025 and beyond is becoming more mix-and-match. It’s no longer “all or nothing” with EA. You could even do something like: buy core Microsoft 365 E5 licenses for all employees via EA (ensuring a locked-in price and discount for that large base) but handle add-on services (Power BI, Dynamics 365, smaller Azure workloads) via CSP where you can turn them on/off easily for specific teams. The winning strategy is whatever lowers cost and complexity for you, even if it means running two programs in parallel. Just weigh the administrative overhead: running an EA and CSP simultaneously means tracking two agreements, but modern tools and partners can help consolidate the reporting.
- Cloud Marketplace and Web Direct: For truly small needs or ad-hoc projects, some organizations simply use Microsoft’s Web Direct (credit card) purchases for Azure or Power Platform on the fly. This isn’t feasible at a large scale due to higher costs and a lack of governance, but it’s an option for a cloud-first dev team that wants to prototype something outside of any enterprise agreement. However, most enterprises prefer CSP or MCA for better cost control and invoicing (credit card billing doesn’t fly with most CFOs for big spending).
In evaluating alternatives, consider contractual flexibility as much as price.
Cloud services evolve quickly. If Microsoft launches a new AI service on Azure, under an EA, you might not have the budget or room to adopt it unless you go through a change process.
Under CSP/MCA, you can just start a trial, pay for what you use, and incorporate it into your environment without contractual negotiation. This freedom is often a deciding factor for cloud-first companies that value innovation.
Is the EA Ever the Right Fit for Cloud-First?
After weighing all these points, one might ask: Should any cloud-first organization stay on an EA? The answer can be yes, in specific scenarios:
- Very Large Enterprises: If you’re enormous (say Fortune 100) and your cloud usage is massive but predictable, Microsoft EAs (or enterprise deals resembling EAs) can still offer bespoke benefits. You might negotiate discounts, special terms, and credits – e.g., multi-year Azure spending credits, funds for consulting services, etc. Microsoft highly values large, stable customers on EAs and often sweetens the pot beyond standard licensing. In these cases, the EA becomes a vehicle for a broader partnership that might include strategic alliance funding or dedicated Microsoft support personnel. If those extras are valuable to you, the EA can pay off despite its rigidity.
- Organizations in Regulated Industries: Some industries (government, defense, etc.) have procurement structures that favor longer contracts for compliance reasons. An EA provides a well-understood contract vehicle. Cloud-first doesn’t change regulatory procurement rules – in some cases, an EA might be the only way to satisfy certain government purchasing requirements for volume or multi-year contracts. Additionally, suppose you require Microsoft to sign specific data protection amendments or custom terms. In that case, it’s often easier to bake those into an EA amendment than to try to attach them to a web direct purchase.
- Stable Growth and Centralized IT: If your user count and cloud usage are not expected to drop (only grow or stay flat), and you prefer centralized control with infrequent changes, an EA still offers convenience. You lock pricing, get one bill, and know what to expect for 3 years. Some CFOs and CIOs sleep better with that stability. Cloud-first doesn’t inherently mean usage is volatile – some companies have fairly linear growth and can forecast cloud spend accurately. For them, committing through an EA may yield a net positive if they can fully use all they commit to.
However, even in the above scenarios, a modern EA (the MCA-E) might be structured differently, possibly with shorter terms or more opt-out clauses as Microsoft adapts.
We’ve seen Microsoft introduce more flexibility in recent EA amendments to accommodate cloud usage patterns (for example, more frequent adjustments to Azure commits).
If you find yourself leaning toward renewing an EA in a cloud-first environment, negotiate for cloud-friendly terms: ask for the ability to adjust Azure commits annually, or the right to reduce a certain percentage of Microsoft 365 licenses at the anniversary if needed.
Microsoft might not always grant these, but the licensing landscape is evolving, and they know they must make EAs more cloud-aligned to retain customers.
Recommendations
- Evaluate Usage Patterns: Perform a detailed analysis of Azure consumption and Microsoft 365 license utilization. Identify volatility if usage varies significantly monthly; that’s a sign an EA might be costing you extra.
- Compare 3-Year Costs: Project your costs under an EA (with expected growth and discounts) vs. under CSP or directly (with pay-as-you-go and potential list prices). Include support costs in both scenarios. This modeling will give you a clear picture of which is financially more advantageous over the same period.
- Consider a Trial Run: If feasible, try moving a slice of your cloud workload to a CSP for a few months while still under your EA (for example, a separate Azure subscription not covered by EA). This experience can highlight the model’s benefits or challenges and inform your decision.
- Negotiate with Data: If you decide to stay with EA, use data from your analysis to negotiate better terms. For instance, if you know you only use 80% of your licenses actively, negotiate some buffer or concessions for that unused 20% rather than blindly renewing it.
- Embrace Cloud-Native Financial Management: If you move away from EA, invest in proper cloud cost management practices. The onus will be on you (and/or your CSP partner) to monitor and optimize costs continuously. Set up policies for rightsizing VMs, turning off unused services, and regularly reviewing license assignments. The savings of leaving the EA will only materialize if you actively manage your cloud spend.
- Review Support Needs: Cloud-first IT may not need the same support level as on-prem IT. Consider if a lighter support plan (or partner-provided support) could suffice. This could tilt the equation by saving significant money previously bundled into your EA strategy.
- Hybrid Approach if Needed: Don’t be afraid to adopt a hybrid licensing model if it plays to your advantage. For example, you could use CSP for Azure and direct for Microsoft 365, or vice versa. Ensure your internal processes can handle this (it may require a bit more licensing coordination, but the cost benefits might justify it).
- Stay Informed: Microsoft licensing programs are not static. New offers (like Azure savings plans, new commerce billing options, etc.) roll out frequently. Stay in touch with Microsoft announcements or consult with licensing experts periodically. There might be new cloud-focused agreements or special promotions that weren’t available last year, which could change the calculus.
- Plan Exit Strategies: If you commit to an EA and have an eye on the future, what if two years in, you realize it’s not working? Make sure you understand the penalties or flexibility (usually, you’re locked for 3 years no matter what). If uncertainty is high, a shorter-term or smaller commitment might be wiser than a giant EA deal. In the cloud, agility is key – don’t let a contract unduly bind your hands if you can avoid it.
- Focus on Business Value: Align your licensing model with business outcomes. If agility, rapid innovation, and scaling up/down are critical to your business (as is common in cloud-first operations), that should weigh heavily in choosing a more flexible model. If consistency, long-term planning, and vendor engagement are more crucial, an EA can still work. Let your business priorities drive the decision, not just procurement tradition.
FAQ
Q1: What’s the biggest mistake enterprises make regarding EAs when moving to cloud-first?
A1: The biggest mistake is renewing the EA out of habit without rethinking the actual usage and needs in the cloud era. Many organizations simply rubber-stamp their EA renewal because “that’s what we’ve always done,” even though their IT consumption model has radically changed. This can lead to overcommitting and overspending. Cloud-first should prompt a fresh look – maybe a smaller EA or none. Don’t assume the EA is still the best deal; prove it with analysis or be willing to change course.
Q2: If we drop our EA, will we end up paying more for the same cloud services?
A2: It depends on your size and discounts, but often not dramatically more, and sometimes less. Without an EA, you lose volume discount on paper; however, you gain the ability to trim unused services. Many companies find that the net effect is roughly break-even or a modest saving outside the EA, especially after factoring in support cost differences. If you are very large and had steep EA discounts, you might pay somewhat more per unit outside it. It’s crucial to run the numbers for your case. You might also negotiate alternative discounts (e.g., a CSP partner giving you a custom rate for being a big customer).
Q3: How does Microsoft’s new “MCA-E” differ from a traditional EA for cloud services?
A3: The MCA-E (Microsoft Customer Agreement for Enterprise) is Microsoft’s modern contract that can cover your Azure and other subscriptions without a fixed term. Think of it as an EA without the 3-year lock-in. It’s “evergreen,” with no expiration date, and you can adjust as needed. However, it also doesn’t inherently include upfront discounts or enterprise-specific benefits unless negotiated. It’s more flexible in duration; otherwise, you may pay prices similar to EA’s. The MCA is managed directly through Microsoft’s commerce portal. For a cloud-first org, MCA-E is attractive because it simplifies procurement (only ~9 pages contract vs 30+ pages EA) and allows more purchasing through an online interface. The main drawback is the lack of an EA’s structured pricing levels and maybe some complexity if you need to handle legacy stuff (like SA for servers). Microsoft is pushing many customers in the US and EMEA to this model as they phase out traditional EAs for mid-sized enterprises.
Q4: We heavily use Azure. Can an EA give us better Azure pricing than other options?
A4: For extremely high Azure spend (think millions per year), an EA might allow you to negotiate custom pricing or get a bigger discount tier. Microsoft sometimes provides an Azure consumption commitment discount for EA customers, or free Azure credits for dev/test environments, etc. On the other hand, Microsoft’s public cloud pricing has become more uniform. Outside an EA, you can use Azure Reserved Instances or Savings Plans to reduce costs significantly on your steady workloads. Those are available to anyone. CSP partners also have incentives to reduce Azure costs for you (like sharing their partner discount or advising on architecture changes to save money). If your Azure usage is moderate or fluctuates, the pay-per-use model might cost you less because you won’t have the risk of unused committed spend. In summary, EAs can give a price edge for Azure if you are both large and consistently growing; otherwise, the difference is not huge, and flexibility might matter more.
Q5: What about Microsoft 365 – isn’t an EA the only way to get certain advanced SKUs or unlimited user rights?
A5: In the past, EAs had some exclusive offerings or use rights (like the ability to mix and match certain suites, or device-based licenses for Office). Today, almost every Microsoft 365 SKU is available directly or via CSP. For instance, you can get Microsoft 365 E5, add-ons like Audio Conferencing, Power BI Pro, etc., all outside an EA. One nuance: some legacy or specialized licenses (like if you still use Office Pro Plus device licenses, or a Microsoft 365 device-based subscription for kiosks) might need an EA or a specific program. But for a cloud-first org, you’re likely using User Subscription Licenses, which are all obtainable via CSP/MCA. There is no unlimited use right in M365 under EA; you still license per user. So the main difference is not what you can get, but how you pay and manage it. One exception in conversation is if you’re doing something like an Enterprise Agreement Unified that bundles Windows, Office, EMS for every user – replicating that “all-in bundle” can still be done via Microsoft 365 E3/E5 outside EA easily. So functionality-wise, you won’t miss out by dropping EA; it’s more about pricing and terms.
Q6: We’re concerned about currency fluctuations (we operate in Europe). Does an EA help with that?
A6: Yes, an EA locks your pricing in the currency of your contract for the 3-year term. This can protect you from Microsoft’s periodic foreign exchange price adjustments. For example, if the Euro or British Pound weakens against the USD, Microsoft has been known to raise Euro or GBP prices to “align” with global USD pricing. EA customers would typically be shielded from that until renewal. Without an EA, your costs could increase if Microsoft announces a 10% price increase in your region to account for currency changes. In 2025, Microsoft harmonized many prices globally, which resulted in some increases in Europe. If currency stability or hedging is a concern, an EA provides price protection for its term. Some companies in EMEA value the EA for this reason – it’s a hedge against currency volatility. If you go CSP, note that CSP contracts typically have clauses that follow Microsoft pricing, which could change yearly or semi-annually. So, consider the economic environment: stable currency and minor annual adjustments might not matter, but an EA’s fixed pricing is a tangible benefit in turbulent times.
Q7: If we commit everything to cloud subscriptions, do we get benefits similar to EA’s “all-in” commitment?
A7: Microsoft does have some incentive programs for broad adoption. For example, suppose you roll out Microsoft 365 to all eligible users, even outside an EA. In that case, you might qualify for deployment funding or adoption programs funded by Microsoft (they often do this through partners, offering days of services to help you deploy). Those things were sometimes baked in in an EA as Planning Services vouchers, etc. Outside of an EA, you might have to ask your Microsoft reps, but they do want customers to fully utilize cloud services. Also, Microsoft has “Advanced Support for Partners” and other offerings, which sometimes come into play if you spend above certain thresholds on Azure via CSP – you essentially indirectly get a higher level of support through the partner’s status. While not as formalized as EA benefits, cloud-first customers should inquire about any available programs: e.g., Azure onboarding assistance, FastTrack for Microsoft 365 (free for 150+ seat customers regardless of EA), and so on. You won’t get things like Training Vouchers anymore (Microsoft retired many SA benefits), so the gap between EA and non-EA benefits has narrowed. Focus on what truly adds value – many perks can be obtained in other ways.
Q8: Our finance department likes fixed annual budgets. Will moving to a consumption model wreak havoc on budgeting?
A8: Going from a fixed EA payment to variable cloud bills requires a mindset shift in budgeting. But it’s manageable. One approach is to set an annual cloud budget cap internally, say “we budget $X for Azure this year,” and monitor usage monthly to stay on track, similar to how you’d track any utility-like expense. Azure cost management tools can forecast based on current usage trends to help predict full-year spend. For Microsoft 365, since user counts don’t typically swing wildly, you can fairly accurately budget that (plus a buffer for new hires). Some organizations even do their own internal “EA” by reserving funds: if they under-consume in one area, they reinvest in another. The key is cultivating a FinOps discipline – treat cloud costs as something to optimize continuously. Over time, finance might appreciate that this encourages more responsible spending of IT funds (teams have to justify what they keep running, since it all shows up on a bill). If needed, you can also leverage vendors who offer consolidated billing or even third-party services that charge a flat monthly fee for managing your cloud (though that itself usually just adds cost). Budgeting is different, but there are ample tools and strategies today to budget for cloud; many enterprises have done it successfully after leaving large contracts.
Q9: Security and compliance – any difference with or without an EA?
A9: The licensing vehicle (EA vs CSP vs direct) doesn’t inherently change your products’ security or compliance features. Microsoft 365 and Azure have the same security capabilities regardless of how you buy them. However, there is one angle: if you have certain compliance requirements that need guaranteed access to features or specific contract terms (like data residency, GDPR clauses, etc.), an EA is sometimes used to negotiate those terms in a custom rider. With CSP and MCA, you’re largely accepting Microsoft’s standard online terms (which, to be fair, already include GDPR-compliant provisions and such). For 99% of cases, this is fine. If you require a HIPAA BAA (Business Associate Agreement), Microsoft provides that for cloud services, regardless of EA, as long as you accept their terms online. Security support might differ in that under an EA, you might have had some architecture reviews or services from Microsoft’s account team. Without an EA, you might rely on a partner’s security expertise for architecture. In a cloud-first world, I’d argue the most important factor for security is how you configure and use the tools, not how you license them. Ensure that any special clauses in your EA for security/compliance are addressed when moving to a new agreement (most likely via Microsoft’s standard Online Services Terms, which are publicly available and updated).
Q10: How do Microsoft’s upcoming price increases affect EA vs non-EA customers?
A10: Microsoft announced price adjustments (for instance, aligning global prices or adding premiums for new AI features in certain licenses). If you have an EA, typically any price increase for products you already licensed doesn’t affect you until renewal – you’re price-protected. If you’re buying month-to-month (non-EA), when Microsoft raises the price of a service, your cost will go up accordingly once that change takes effect. For example, if Microsoft 365 goes up 5% in 2025 and you’re out of EA, you’ll pay that new rate. EA customers would continue at their old rate until their EA term ends (assuming those products were covered in the initial order). So, EAs shield you temporarily. However, note that Microsoft often gives advance notice of such increases, and they usually coincide with EA renewal cycles purposely (so even EA customers end up paying more eventually). In a high-inflation environment, an EA’s fixed pricing is valuable. It could lock you into higher prices in a stable or deflationary environment. Given recent trends, many expect cloud software prices to rise over time (as more features are added). So, this is a point in favor of EAs if you want to lock current pricing for a few years. If you go non-EA, keep an eye on announcements – you might pre-purchase or extend subscriptions just before a price hike to temporarily lock in the older price (some annual subscriptions via CSP can be started ahead of a price change to buy one more year at the old rate).
Read about our Microsoft Negotiation Services.
