When to Move from Microsoft EA to MCA: A Licensing Strategy Perspective

When to Move from Microsoft EA to MCA

As Microsoft shifts its enterprise licensing models, many CIOs and procurement leaders ask: When does it make sense to move from a traditional Enterprise Agreement (EA) to a Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA)?

This article provides a strategic guide to making that decision.

We’ll compare cost and flexibility differences, identify scenarios where an MCA is advantageous, and highlight what to watch out for (such as support changes and lost benefits).

Whether in the US or EMEA, the goal is to help you craft a licensing strategy that fits your organization’s cloud trajectory.

Introduction: EA vs. MCA in a Changing Cloud Landscape

Enterprise Agreements have been the go-to for large organizations for decades. They are 3-year contracts covering Windows, Office, and increasingly Azure, with volume discounts and fixed terms.

Microsoft Customer Agreement is the newer, modular, digital-only, evergreen contract. It reflects Microsoft’s cloud-first commerce approach: simplify buying and let customers pay largely for what they use.

Microsoft itself is pushing this transition. Starting in 2025, many customers will be unable to renew certain EAs (especially those that are Azure-only) and will need to transition to MCA or CSP agreements.

To quote a Microsoft rep, the MCA is positioned as “the digital evolution of the traditional EA,” with promises of flexibility and streamlined purchasing.

But does that mean you should switch as soon as possible? Not necessarily.

Switching from EA to MCA should be driven by your organization’s needs: cost optimization, cloud adoption patterns, deal leverage, and administrative preferences. Let’s break down key factors to consider.

Read Microsoft MCA Pitfalls to Avoid: Common Mistakes in Azure Agreements.

Cost Structure: Upfront Commitment vs. Pay-as-You-Go

One of the biggest differences is how you pay for Azure (and other services):

• Under an EA, you typically make a monetary commitment for Azure over a 3-year term (say, $1.5M over 3 years, which might be structured as $500 per year). You effectively pre-pay (annually or upfront) for Azure credits, receiving a discounted rate in return. If you use more, you pay extra (often at the same discounted rate); if you use less, you forfeit the unused funds at the end of the term. For user-based licenses (Office 365, etc.), EA locks in a price per user for 3 years (with the ability to adjust quantities annually).
• Under an MCA, there’s no required upfront commitment for Azure – it defaults to pay-as-you-go monthly billing. You only pay for what you consume, and the contract doesn’t expire (though pricing can change as discussed later). However, custom commitments can be added to an MCA for discounts. In other words, if you’re a big spender and want EA-like discounted rates, Microsoft can still ask for an Azure spend commitment under the MCA, but it could be a shorter duration or a more flexible amount. If you don’t negotiate such, you’ll pay standard retail rates (or slightly discounted rates via a partner in CSP).

For an illustrative cost modeling comparison, consider an organization with an annual Azure consumption that could vary:

Table: Cost modeling EA vs MCA for Azure consumption scenarios. EA provides cost benefits at full or above-commit usage, but can waste money if usage falls short. MCA ensures you only pay for what you use, but per-unit costs might be higher without commitment discounts.

In summary, EAs can yield lower unit prices (and budget certainty for the term) but carry the risk of paying for capacity you don’t use.

MCAs eliminate the commitment risk; you pay on demand, but if you use a lot, you might pay more than you would have under an EA discount.

The decision often hinges on how predictable and steady your usage is:

• If you expect steady or growing usage to fully utilize a commit, an EA (or an MCA with a negotiated commit discount) can save money over time.
• If you expect volatile or uncertain usage (e.g., projects may not materialize, or you have variable, bursty demand), MCA’s flexibility may save you from overpaying for unused capacity.

Some organizations adopt a mixed strategy: they commit to a baseline to receive a discount, but not the full forecast, leaving room for variability without waste.

Flexibility and Cloud-First Alignment

MCA is inherently more flexible and cloud-aligned. Here’s how:

• Contract Term: The MCA is evergreen – there are no renewal cycles for Azure, and you can add or remove services as needed. This aligns with cloud consumption models (scale up/down any time). EA is a 3-year term; you’re essentially making a 3-year plan. If your company is in a dynamic growth (or downsizing) phase, MCA can accommodate that more readily. Additionally, if you dislike the large negotiation event that occurs every 3 years, MCA avoids that, although you may negotiate individual pieces continuously (more on negotiation later).
• Scale of Adoption: For a cloud-first strategy, where most of your spending is on Azure and SaaS, an MCA can cover everything in a single modern agreement. Microsoft is expanding MCA to include other subscriptions, such as Microsoft 365 and Dynamics. This means you could potentially manage all your cloud services without the need for an EA. If you’re trying to remove on-premises software and move 100% to cloud subscriptions, an MCA aligns with that future state (no need for the legacy EA constructs designed for perpetual licenses).
• Mid-term Adjustments: Under EA, you generally cannot reduce your license counts until renewal (you can increase at anniversaries, but not usually decrease core license quantities mid-term). Under MCA, because it’s consumption/subscription driven, you can often start or stop subscriptions with shorter notice (monthly or annually, depending on the product). This flexibility to true-down is a big plus for organizations that might divest a division or reduce headcount – you’re not stuck paying for 3 years for users you no longer have. For Azure specifically, you simply pay for what you use, so turning off VMs immediately lowers your cost, and there is no need to wait for any true-up period.
• Procurement Speed: MCA is digital and direct. There is no lengthy paperwork; you accept it online. This can shorten procurement cycles for new cloud services. For example, suppose a business unit wants to start a new Azure project under MCA. In that case, you already have the agreement in place—they can spin up resources without waiting for an EA amendment or new enrollment. Adding a new product line to an EA may require obtaining approvals from an LSP and Microsoft.
• Multi-region considerations: For global companies, EA vs. MCA may impact how you manage regional operations. EA often had enrollments per region (or one global with a price in local currency). MCA tends to be centralized, with pricing in USD globally (then converted at the time of billing). MCA is suitable if you prefer a single global agreement and are comfortable with USD-based billing. Suppose local entities require local currency billing consistency. Note that under MCA, monthly currency conversions may introduce fluctuations (Microsoft does provide a fixed exchange rate for each month’s consumption). EAs in local currency had 3-year rate locks, which some EMEA companies liked for their predictability; that aspect is eliminated with MCA, as discussed.

Bottom line: Agile Organizations, growing, or heavily cloud-oriented, often lean towards MCA for its flexibility.

Those that are stable, with predictable growth, and value long-term predictability might prefer the structure of an EA a bit longer.

When to Move: Key Scenarios and Timing

Based on industry practice and Microsoft’s changes, here are scenarios where moving to an MCA makes sense:

• Azure-Only Consumption and Small/Mid Size: An MCA via a CSP might be better if your EA was primarily used for Azure and your annual Azure spend is below Microsoft’s threshold for big discounts (~<$1M/year). Microsoft often requires customers under a certain size or spend to go MCA/CSP because an EA isn’t offered. For instance, if you have 200 users and a moderate Azure footprint, an EA’s admin overhead and commitment might not be justified; MCA will simplify things, and you’re not losing much discount since EA’s volume pricing wasn’t huge at that scale.
• EA Renewal Opportunity: The ideal time to switch is at EA renewal. Instead of signing another 3-year EA, you would sign an MCA. This avoids penalties; you generally wouldn’t break an EA mid-term (unless Microsoft offers some concession) due to early termination fees. Therefore, evaluate MCA in your EA’s performance over the last 6-12 months. Microsoft typically sends renewal quotes six months in advance, which serves as a prompt to also obtain an MCA quote for comparison. If the MCA path is cheaper or better aligns with current needs, that’s when to consider moving. This timing lets you co-term things nicely (EA ends, MCA begins with no overlap or gap).
• Microsoft’s Forced Transition: As noted, Microsoft has begun sunsetting certain EA renewals, e.g., starting in 2025, some customers in direct markets will no longer be allowed to renew Azure-only Server & Cloud Enrollment (SCE) or add Azure to a desktop EA. If you receive notice that your EA can’t be renewed, you are forced to move to MCA (for enterprise-tier customers) or to CSP. In this case, the “when” is answered for you: at EA expiration. The key is to prepare a plan for that. Don’t simply roll onto MCA without negotiation; even if mandated, you can negotiate discounts and terms into your new MCA-E.
• Cloud-First / Digital Transformation Initiatives: If your organization has decided to go “all-in” on the cloud and wants maximum flexibility in adopting new services, an MCA may be beneficial sooner rather than later. For example, consider an enterprise planning a significant move to Azure over the next 18 months. They might opt for MCA now to easily ramp up Azure usage without worrying about hitting commit tiers, and also to take advantage of continuous purchasing of new cloud services (like if they want to add Power Platform, Dynamics 365, etc., MCA can handle those as they come without new agreements each time).
• End of Premier/Unified Support Tied to EA: If you have support contracts aligned with your EA that are expiring or changing, that could be a natural inflection point. For instance, free Standard Azure support is gone now, so moving to MCA doesn’t mean you lose that benefit because it’s already lost for EA, too. However, if you had Premier Support credits via SA that have expired, you may be able to renegotiate support when transitioning to MCA. Consider all ancillary services tied to your EA; their renewal might coincide with a switch to MCA.

In terms of exit strategy: If you leave EA, make sure you capture any EA benefits carry-over.

For example, EA commits sometimes have a 90-day grace period to use remaining Azure funds; otherwise, they will be lost. Additionally, EA licenses with active SA decide whether to renew them in some form or accept that they’ll lapse.

Some companies use an early renewal or extension of the EA to better time things. Redress Compliance advises that if you want to stick to EA one more cycle (for stability) and are eligible, try to lock that in before Microsoft forces you off.

Conversely, if you see that you’re paying a “cloud tax” in EA (e.g., you’re not using what you committed), you might even consider negotiating an early move to MCA.

Microsoft may allow you to terminate an EA early without penalty if you sign an MCA and commit to a certain spend, essentially converting the agreement.

This would be case-by-case, and you’d want to negotiate it carefully with your account representative (get it in writing that no penalties or remaining commitments are handled, etc.).

Support Model Implications

Switching to MCA can have implications for your support arrangements and overall vendor relationship:

• No More Included Support: As noted earlier, Microsoft’s promotional inclusion of Azure Standard support under EA/MCA has ended. Under MCA, you’ll need to purchase a support plan (unless you already have Unified Support). Budget for support costs – Azure Standard is approximately $100/month, Developer is $29, etc. Alternatively, consider Microsoft Unified Support (a percentage of your overall spend, typically more expensive for large enterprises) or third-party support alternatives. If you move to a CSP partner, that partner may bundle support (some do, while others offer it for an additional fee). Evaluate the quality and SLA of partner support if going that route.
• Account Management: Under an EA, you have a licensing reseller (LSP) who assists with quotes, adding products, and occasionally provides licensing advice. Additionally, Microsoft may have assigned an Account Manager and possibly a Customer Success Manager to support your cloud services. With a direct MCA (enterprise motion), you deal directly with Microsoft sales without an intermediary. Some organizations appreciate cutting out the middleman; others miss the guidance of an LSP. Ensure your team has the licensing expertise to self-manage, or consider engaging an independent advisor, especially during the transition. The quality of support from Microsoft for MCA-E customers can vary – top-tier customers will still get a Microsoft account team attention; smaller ones may get more self-service. If you’re going via CSP (MCA breadth), the partner becomes your primary point of contact for adds, changes, and often serves as your first-line support. Choose a partner with a good track record; ask about their support SLAs and expertise.
• Unified Contracts: One benefit is that if you have separate EA and other agreements, moving to MCA could simplify vendor management. Microsoft will bill you directly (often more frequently, e.g., monthly invoices instead of a yearly EA invoice). Review your internal procurement and finance processes: Are they suitable for managing monthly operational expenses versus large upfront payments? This may require adjusting PO processes or budgets to shift from CapEx to OpEx. Many CIOs prefer the cloud OpEx model for flexibility. Still, finance may need to educate people that monthly cloud bills can fluctuate (especially without a price lock, as they may vary with usage and exchange rates).
• Legal Terms Differences: Although not explicitly supported, note that the legal terms in the MCA are not identical to those in the EA. Some terms you negotiated in EA (liability caps, data protection riders, etc.) might not carry over. Microsoft’s MCA is somewhat standardized (though they may offer certain amendments for large customers). Work with legal to review the MCA fine print. For example, indemnification or liability clauses might differ. If you have concerns, you’ll need to negotiate separate agreements or addenda, as the MCA doesn’t allow as much customization in the click-through. This isn’t a show-stopper for most, but it’s part of the “support model” in a broader sense – you may not have the same contractual safety nets you painstakingly added to your EA.

Tip:

When transitioning, explicitly ask Microsoft, “Will I retain my current support relationship and benefits under MCA?” Often, the move to MCA-E is accompanied by a Microsoft Customer Success Unit (CSU) to ensure a successful transition.

But if not offered, consider negotiating some success services or workshops to ensure you won’t be left adrift after leaving the EA’s structured support environment.

EA vs MCA Comparison Table

To recap the differences between the Enterprise Agreement and the Microsoft Customer Agreement at a high level:

Table: Comparison of Microsoft EA vs MCA across key dimensions.

Decision Criteria Checklist

Consider the following criteria to decide whether to move from EA to MCA.

If most of these lean toward MCA, it might be time to switch; if they lean toward EA, you may hold off or negotiate a hybrid approach:

• 1. Azure Spend Predictability: Is your Azure consumption highly predictable and steadily growing, or is it uncertain/variable?
  • Predictable & high → EA (to lock discounts) may still be valuable.
  • Unpredictable or moderate → MCA (pay-go flexibility) likely saves more.
• 2. Size of Organization: Do you exceed Microsoft’s thresholds for an EA? (Generally ~500+ users or $ 1 M+ annual Azure).
  • Smaller than the threshold → MCA/CSP is probably the only option soon.
  • Larger → You have a choice, but Microsoft might still encourage MCA-E for top-tier customers in direct markets.
• 3. Cloud-Only vs Hybrid Needs: Are you moving to cloud-only services or need on-prem licenses with Software Assurance?
  • We still need on-premises/SA → EA or a mix (you might keep an EA for those, since MCA won’t sell perpetual licenses, and SA benefits would be lost without an alternative).
  • Cloud-only (Azure, M365, Dynamics online) → MCA can likely cover all your needs, making EA less necessary.
• 4. Desire for Contract Flexibility: Do you require the ability to scale down licenses or change course quickly?
  • Yes, you need to scale down or frequently adjust the MCA (there is no long-term lock, so you can quickly reduce usage costs).
  • No, the environment is stable → EA (commitment isn’t a burden if nothing changes).
• 5. Pricing and Budgeting Strategy: Do you prioritize a fixed budget (even if it risks waste) or pay-as-you-go efficiency (even if costs fluctuate)?
  • Fixed budgeting, hate surprise bills → EA provides more cost predictability (set annual commitment, price locks).
  • Cost efficiency: only pay for what’s used → MCA aligns with that (bills vary, but no prepaid waste).
• 6. Negotiation Leverage Points: Can you negotiate custom discounts outside the standard program?
  • Yes (very large spend, willing to commit) → Under EA, you might negotiate special pricing or extras; under MCA, you could too, but EA historically had set discount tiers for volume. If you prefer periodic renegotiation to lower prices, EA renewal is an opportunity; MCA has no set renewal schedule, so you must take proactive action.
  • No (smaller fish) → The standardization of MCA might benefit you (less complexity, you get what everyone gets).
• 7. Support Needs: Do you rely heavily on Microsoft’s support infrastructure (e.g., Premier Support, fast escalations via account team)?
  • Yes, critical support needed → Ensure support is lined up with MCA (likely via Unified Support contract or a partner). EA doesn’t guarantee support beyond what you buy, but historically, EA customers have had easier access to account team support. You may need to pay for this under the MCA.
  • No, if you have minimal support or already have Unified, then MCA won’t change much here. Just remember to buy at least a Standard plan if you want Azure technical support.
• 8. Multi-Cloud Strategy: Are you keeping some workloads in other clouds (AWS/GCP) and want to avoid locking into spend commitments with Microsoft?
  • Multi-cloud cautious → MCA with no/minimal commitment allows you to shift spend around (Microsoft knows you have “choices” so you can continue leveraging them).
  • All-in on Azure → Then you might be comfortable committing via EA if it yields better terms.
• 9. Internal Licensing Expertise: Do you have (or can you get) the in-house knowledge to manage licensing without an LSP’s help?
  • Yes, or have a consultant → You can navigate MCA fine (just you and Microsoft).
  • No, rely on the reseller’s guidance → If you leave EA and go directly to MCA, you lose that guiding hand. Perhaps consider staying with a partner through the CSP program so you still receive that help (but that’s MCA via CSP, not EA).
• 10. Future Microsoft Roadmap: Are there new Microsoft services (e.g., Azure AI services, new SaaS offerings) you plan to adopt in the mid-term? And do you want contractual freedom to try them?
  • Yes, I want flexibility in adopting new stuff → MCA allows adding new products as needed (and Microsoft is rolling new services into MCA faster). You won’t have to wait for an EA renewal or special amendment.
  • No, sticking to what we have → EA can cover what you’re using now, and you’re not in a rush to expand the service catalog.

Reviewing this checklist can help clarify your situation. For example, a mid-sized company with 300 users, all in the cloud, an unpredictable project load, a multi-cloud approach, and limited internal licensing staff typically opts for MCA through a partner.

A 5,000-user enterprise, mostly all-in on Microsoft, with stable growth and a need for custom contract terms, might lean toward EA (or MCA-E with a custom commitment), depending on how much they value flexibility versus stability.

Real-World Example Transitions

• Example 1: A European Manufacturing Firm (large enterprise) had a traditional EA covering Windows, Office, and a growing Azure environment. By 2024, 80% of their spend was on cloud services, and they planned to close data centers. Microsoft informed them that at the next renewal, they would not be able to renew the Azure SCE under EA (as part of the MCA push in direct markets). They evaluated and moved to an MCA-E. They negotiated to carry over their Azure commitment at a slightly reduced level (to avoid past overestimation) and secured similar discount rates in the MCA. They did lose some of the old SA training days (which Microsoft had already phased out) , but kept their Hybrid Benefits through continued Windows Server subscriptions. The move freed them to adjust cloud spend more often. One lesson: they had to retrain their IT asset team to use the new Azure Cost Management portal for billing, as the EA portal was retired – a one-time change management issue.
• Example 2: US-based SaaS Company (Mid-market) – This company had an EA primarily because they started with 400 Office 365 users and a small Azure dev environment. As they grew, they found the EA cumbersome – they always overcommitted on Azure (wasting money), and the EA true-up process was an administrative headache for their lean team. In 2023, they moved to buying through a CSP partner (MCA breadth motion). This allows them to drop unused Office 365 licenses monthly as their headcount fluctuates, and they only pay for Azure as needed. Their partner manages the billing and provides support. They gave up an 8% Azure discount under EA, but the savings from not overcommitting (and the partner gave them a small 3% discount anyway) made it worth it. They highlight the benefit of multiple invoices with sections (the partner provides detailed bills by project,) which helped their showback to internal departments – a feature they value more than the EA’s single invoice.
• Example 3: Government Agency (Public Sector EMEA) – Due to regulatory and budget reasons, this agency preferred the predictable spend of an EA. However, due to EUR-USD adjustments, Microsoft’s regional pricing alignment caused their EA renewal quote to jump 15%. They considered moving to MCA to benefit from potential price drops, but ultimately stayed on EA after negotiating a cap on currency fluctuations and a modest Azure commitment that they were confident about. This underscores that each case is unique: their risk from budget overruns (public funds) outweighed the allure of MCA flexibility. They did adopt some MCA-style practices, like monthly internal chargebacks, even though the contract is EA.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

1. Will Microsoft force all customers off EA to MCA?
Microsoft’s long-term plan is to transition to the New Commerce platform for all transactions, of which MCA is a part. They have already stopped new Azure-only EAs in many cases. It’s likely that over the next few years, most organizations will be moved to MCA or CSP once their EAs expire, especially for cloud services. However, EA for certain products (such as on-premises or very large bundled deals) may persist for a while. For now, Microsoft targets specific segments (e.g., mid-market, Azure-centric customers) for early transition. So, yes, the momentum is toward MCA, but if you have a complex EA, you might not be forced to make a decision until they have solutions for everything (e.g., very large global terms, special industries, etc.). Keep an eye on Microsoft announcements and plan for an eventual MCA world.

2. Can we have both an EA and an MCA simultaneously?
Generally, yes, you can. Some large enterprises use an EA for certain products and an MCA for others. For instance, you might maintain an EA for Microsoft 365 and server licenses, but use an MCA for Azure because you were forced off the SCE. Microsoft might not love this because it fragments the relationship, but it’s possible. That said, Microsoft might push you to consolidate. If you split, be cautious about duplicate services, e.g., avoid accidentally paying twice for the same item in EA and MCA. Also, note that if you had Azure in EA and started an MCA for Azure, you’d have to migrate subscriptions from the EA enrollment to the new billing account. It’s doable (via a support request or partner assistance), but plan the transition to minimize disruption.

3. What are the support options under MCA if we drop EA?
Support under MCA is the same as Azure support plans available to anyone: Basic (free, with very limited support), Developer, Standard, Professional Direct, or Unified. If you are an enterprise, you’ll likely either purchase Unified Support (if you have a broad Microsoft footprint – this is a separate expensive contract but covers all products) or at least an Azure Standard support plan for critical needs Under CSP, many partners include some form of support – check if that meets your needs. One thing to highlight: the free support you may have enjoyed under EA is no longer available under MCA, so include support costs in your ROI analysis for the move. The quality of support from Microsoft won’t inherently degrade because of MCA – you can still escalate critical issues if you have the right plan in place. Still, you won’t have a “Microsoft TAM” unless you pay for it via Unified or have a good partner managing support.

4. How does license management change under MCA?
If you move to MCA for things like Microsoft 365, you’ll manage licenses in the Microsoft 365 admin center or Azure portal (for Azure, of course). The EA portal (Enterprise Admin Center) will no longer be used. Microsoft has been improving the portals’ cost management and license visibility tools; for example, under MCA, you get new invoice and cost management capabilities in the Azure portal. However, some reports (like a comprehensive Microsoft License Statement) aren’t automatically provided for MCA. You may need tracking or partner tools for a holistic view if you have many services. ITAM processes need to adapt: instead of relying on a single true-up report from Microsoft, you may need to pull usage reports from multiple portals. It’s wise to implement a tag or group structure in Azure to track which department is using what, since you’ll deal with ongoing consumption rather than a once-a-year snapshot.

5. Will we save money by switching to MCA?
It depends. You might save if you were overcommitted to EA and wasting spending, or if your user count is decreasing and EA’s fixed annual costs are too high. Many have found that they can avoid a large upfront payment and improve their cash flow by opting for a pay-as-you-go plan. You might pay more if you lose a significant discount you had fully utilized. Additionally, under EA, you may have received some complimentary benefits (e.g., promotional support, Azure credits, or discounted training days). Under MCA, you’ll likely pay for those à la carte. In one sense, MCA can lead to better cost-efficiency (no unused licenses lingering, etc.), but it requires active management; otherwise, you could overspend (cloud sprawl). A Gartner or similar study would likely indicate that companies transitioning to consumption models save 5-15% by eliminating waste, but those without proper governance can overshoot their budgets by 10% or more. So, the cost outcome hinges on your management. Be sure to also consider any transition costs (like consulting to migrate subscriptions, or new tools needed for tracking).

6. How do we negotiate in an MCA world without the EA renewal leverage?
This is a big question for many. In an EA, the renewal date is a natural negotiation point – Microsoft wants you to sign again, so you have leverage at that time. With MCA being evergreen, you don’t have a hard renewal date to force discounts. However, you can create opportunities for negotiation. For instance, if your Azure spend is growing, you can approach Microsoft and say, “We might commit $X for a year if you give Y% discount” – essentially negotiate a consumption commitment amendment inside your MCA. Or when adopting a new large service (such as moving 10,000 users to a new Microsoft 365 plan), use that as a mini-negotiation event. Microsoft still has quarterly and annual sales targets, even without your formal renewal. Use those cycles to your advantage: e.g., negotiate a special deal in June or December when they crave end-of-quarter wins. The Version 1 article emphasizes the need for ongoing MCA cost management and negotiation strategy – you don’t get to sleep on it. It suggests continuously engaging experts and maintaining pressure on Microsoft for optimizations, rather than a single major deal every few years.

7. If we move to a CSP partner for MCA, can we switch partners or go direct later?
You can typically switch CSP partners or move to direct MCA, but it may require some administrative work (transferring subscriptions). CSP agreements usually have a clause about termination notice – some partners might have a 30-day notice, others may try to lock you for a year, so read the fine print. Avoid partners with long cancellation notice periods, as you may feel stuck. If you plan to eventually go direct MCA when you grow, ensure you choose a partner to help you transition. If you qualify, Microsoft has processes for “transition to MCA-E” from CSP, and partners are aware of them. From a licensing standpoint, there’s no permanent lock-in with a specific partner – it’s your right to move, just coordinate it carefully so as not to interrupt service or incur double billing during the switch.

8. Are there any risks of losing compliance or getting audited when changing to MCA?
Switching agreement types doesn’t trigger audits, but whenever there’s a change, there’s risk if something is overlooked. One risk is license compliance for items covered under EA with SA, such as SQL Server licenses with SA. For example, suppose you have 100 SQL Server licenses with SA and utilize Azure Hybrid Benefit, and then you drop SA without replacing those licenses. In that case, you may be out of compliance with the Hybrid Benefit. Ensure such scenarios are addressed (either by keeping SA via another program or by stopping the use of those benefits). Microsoft audits can happen under any agreement, but some have speculated that companies might fall out of compliance on certain products in MCA without an LSP monitoring true-ups. However, Azure is usage-based, so it’s either paid or not; compliance issues arise more frequently with on-premises solutions. Conduct a thorough compliance check before and after the transition to ensure safety. Ensure that all users and devices have the appropriate licenses in the new model. The contract change is also a good opportunity to update your SAM records – obtain a final report from your EA, mark it as the baseline, and then track all new information under MCA.

9. Does moving to MCA affect our ability to use existing Microsoft incentives or programs (like Azure credits, etc.)?
Some incentive programs are tied to EA or specific licensing programs. For example, enterprise training vouchers from SA were an EA thing (though they ended in 2022). Azure consumption commitments (MACC) allow you to count Azure Marketplace purchases towards a commitment; that concept still exists in MCA if you commit. Funding programs like Azure Migration Program or FastTrack are available regardless of EA or MCA, as long as you qualify by size. If you participated in any special pricing offers via EA (such as strategic discounts or pilots), ensure they are noted and carried over to MCA if possible. Microsoft often provides similar incentives via MCA – they want your cloud workload, so they might offer an Azure Spending commitment with some free credits or a discount if you sign via MCA. It’s worth discussing with Microsoft what incentive funds or programs you remain eligible for after moving. However, nothing major should be lost; Microsoft’s investments in customers (like deployment funding) typically follow the customer, not the paperwork format.

10. What is the experience of other companies that have transitioned?
Many organizations have undergone this process in the past 1-2 years. Common feedback includes:

• “It was less painful than we expected.” Microsoft provides guidance and some tooling to move Azure subscriptions from EA enrollment to MCA billing without service interruption. Just do it in a controlled manner.
• “We miss the EA true-up as a checkpoint.” Some ITAM teams found that they had to proactively establish new internal true-up processes because it was easy to let things sprawl when no one was requesting a yearly report.
• “Cost management got more focus.” One company mentioned that once they transitioned to a pay-as-you-go model, business units paid more attention to Azure costs since they were visible every month. In contrast, under EA, they were somewhat invisible until renewal. This cultural change helped reduce waste.
• “Negotiating feels different.” Under the MCA, they had to learn to negotiate without a renewal, essentially managing ongoing vendor relationships. They set quarterly meetings with Microsoft to review spend and value, almost like QBRs, to keep some leverage (“if we don’t see value, we could shift to AWS,” hints).
• “Check the fine print.” One piece of advice was to ensure the MCA is set up with the correct billing profile, tax information, etc. When Microsoft moved them to a new billing entity, a few had hiccups with incorrect tax treatment (especially in EMEA with cross-border VAT changes). Those are logistical issues, but worth double-checking.

Hearing from peers can provide reassurance. Ask your Microsoft user group or a licensing forum for anecdotes about your region or industry.