Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) vs. Enterprise Agreement: What’s the Difference?

Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) vs. Enterprise Agreement

Introduction – EA or MCA for Azure?

Suppose your Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) is up for renewal and your organization is heavily invested in Azure.

In that case, you’re likely weighing a big question: stick with the traditional EA or switch to the newer Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA)?

Microsoft now offers both models for purchasing Azure and other services.

Account managers might tout the EA for its long-term discounts and coverage, while pushing the MCA as a flexible, no-commitment alternative.

As a savvy IT decision-maker, you should look past Microsoft’s sales spin and assess which option truly aligns with your organization’s needs and cloud strategy.

In the Azure context, this decision is crucial. The EA has been the go-to for large enterprises for decades, but the MCA is a more recent contract aimed at simplifying cloud purchases.

Buyers renewing an EA often ask if moving to an MCA will give them more Azure flexibility (and possibly save money).

Below, we’ll break down how an Enterprise Agreement works versus a Microsoft Customer Agreement, what each means for Azure procurement, and when to choose one over the other. Read our complete guide to Microsoft Licensing Programs.

We’ll also provide negotiation insights and a checklist to guide your decision. Let’s dive in.

Enterprise Agreement (EA) Recap

The Enterprise Agreement is Microsoft’s classic volume licensing contract for big organizations. It’s a multi-product, multi-year deal that bundles together your Microsoft software and services under one umbrella.

Key things to know about an EA:

• 3-Year Commitment: An EA locks you into a three-year term. You make a contractual commitment to Microsoft for that period, often with no easy way out. This long-term provides price predictability – you typically negotiate pricing upfront, and those license prices stay the same for the term. For on-premises software, you’re committing to a certain number of licenses enterprise-wide, and for Azure, you might commit to a certain dollar spend per year. In short, it’s a long-haul agreement.
• Enterprise-Wide Coverage: The EA is meant for larger enterprises (generally 500 or more users/devices for commercial organizations). It usually requires enterprise-wide standardization on certain products. For example, if you include Windows or Office in the EA, you have to cover all qualified users or devices with those licenses. This “all-in” approach ensures Microsoft gets broad coverage of its products in your company. It’s great for standardized IT environments but can be overkill for smaller or more segmented businesses.
• Volume Discounts and Benefits: In exchange for that commitment, EAs offer volume-based discounts. Microsoft typically provides better pricing tiers based on the large quantity of licenses or the large Azure consumption you commit to. If you’re a big spender, you leverage that scale to get pricing lower than pay-as-you-go rates. EAs also include Software Assurance benefits on the licensed products – meaning free version upgrades, training credits, support incidents, and other perks for the term of the agreement. Large EA customers often get a dedicated Microsoft account team or at least a licensing partner to assist with managing the agreement, and you might get funding for deployment or planning services as part of the deal. In short, Microsoft rewards your commitment with extras and attention.
• Azure Under EA: You can include Azure services in an EA. Traditionally, Azure in an EA came with an upfront monetary commitment (e.g., you agree to spend $X on Azure over each year). That commitment is paid annually, and you draw down against it as you use Azure. If you use more than the committed amount, you pay overage at the end of the year; if you use less, you generally still pay for the committed amount (so it’s “use it or lose it”). Microsoft has also introduced EA billing, where Azure can be more pay-as-you-go within the EA, but usually the best discounts come with committing to an amount. EA customers often get custom Azure pricing or discounts – for example, a blanket percentage off Azure consumption rates, or special pricing on certain services – as part of their negotiation. However, the flip side is that any unused committed spend each year may be forfeited, and you must negotiate new terms at each renewal.
• Account Management and Support: With an EA, you typically have a Licensing Solution Provider (LSP) or Microsoft rep guiding you. You get enterprise-level service. Microsoft’s support plans (Premier/Unified Support) are not automatically included in an EA (you usually purchase support separately). Still, your organization will have access to Microsoft’s support and engineering resources at enterprise scale, especially if you have Software Assurance (which can include some support benefits). Additionally, the EA gives you admin portals like the Volume Licensing Service Center (VLSC) to manage licenses, and an EA enrollment in Azure gives you a centralized way to manage Azure subscriptions across the organization.
• Annual True-Ups: One aspect of EAs is the annual true-up process. Each year, you report any increase in usage (additional licenses, extra users, etc.) beyond your initial count, and you get billed for those additions for the remaining term. This ensures Microsoft is paid for growth in your environment. The true-up is a checkpoint to adjust license counts – it can be a headache, but it also forces a regular review of what you’re using. If you decreased usage, you generally have to wait until the end of the 3-year term to drop those license counts (you can’t usually reduce mid-term). This is a point of inflexibility in EA: you can easily grow during the term (just pay more at true-up), but you can’t shrink your commitments until the renewal.

In summary, the EA is best suited for large enterprises that utilize a broad array of Microsoft products and are willing to commit for three years to receive the best pricing and benefits.

It’s a “lock-in” but one that comes with negotiated advantages: volume discounts, fixed pricing on licenses, Software Assurance, and hands-on account management.

If your organization values price predictability and has the scale to negotiate, the EA has traditionally been the go-to choice.

Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) Overview

The Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) is a newer purchasing framework designed for the cloud era. It’s designed to be a simplified, flexible contract for organizations that primarily want to purchase cloud services (such as Azure) on a transactional basis.

Here are the key characteristics of an MCA:

• Evergreen Agreement: Unlike the EA, the MCA is not a fixed-term contract. It’s often described as evergreen – once you accept the MCA, it remains in place indefinitely until you or Microsoft terminates it. There’s no 3-year expiration forcing a renewal cycle. Practically, this means you don’t have big renewal negotiations every few years; you’re buying services on an ongoing basis. (However, Microsoft can update the terms with notice, and you’d periodically accept updated terms online.)
• No Minimum Commitment or Size: The MCA does not require a large user count or upfront purchase commitment. It’s open to organizations of any size – from one user to thousands. You don’t need 500 seats; even a small business or a specific department could use an MCA. This makes it very appealing to cloud-first startups, mid-market companies, or any group that couldn’t qualify for an EA or doesn’t want that kind of commitment. Under an MCA, you simply pay for what you use or order. There’s no requirement to cover your entire company with a standard suite of products.
• Self-Service, Simplified Purchase: MCAs are typically accepted through a click-through online portal (such as the Azure portal or Microsoft 365 admin center). The agreement is much shorter (often a 10-page legal document that you agree to digitally) compared to the complex EA paperwork. You don’t negotiate custom terms for months – it’s mostly a standard form. Once you have an MCA, you can directly go to the Azure portal and start spinning up services or ordering Microsoft subscriptions without needing to sign a new contract each time. Microsoft’s goal here was to streamline the buying process for cloud services.
• Pay-As-You-Go Model: With an MCA, Azure is typically consumption-based billing. You pay monthly for the Azure services you consume, similar to how you’d pay a utility bill. There’s no need to pre-commit to a certain spend. If you ramp usage up or down, your bill reflects that. This model provides maximum flexibility to start or stop services. If a project ends, you can shut down the VMs and not pay further. If you suddenly need more capacity, you just use it and pay for it. For organizations worried about being over-committed, the MCA offers freedom – you’re not locked into a yearly spend commitment. However, note that the flip side is standard pricing: by default, MCA consumption is at Microsoft’s retail rates for Azure. There isn’t an automatic volume discount like you might have under an EA. (We’ll discuss later how large MCA customers can still get discounts via other means.)
• Focus on Azure and Cloud Services: The MCA is especially suited for organizations that primarily consume Azure or other Microsoft cloud services (like Microsoft 365 subscriptions). You can also purchase some on-premises software through the new commerce experience under an MCA (for example, perpetual licenses via Microsoft’s online store or through partners). Still, the MCA’s sweet spot is cloud. If your needs are mostly Azure infrastructure and maybe a handful of Microsoft 365 or Dynamics 365 subscriptions, an MCA can cover that easily. There’s no requirement to purchase a broad suite or any on-prem software unless you need to.
• Fewer Custom Terms: One thing to be aware of is that MCAs are less negotiable. With an EA, enterprises often negotiate custom contract terms or concessions (special payment terms, deployment rights, etc.). The MCA is largely a standardized agreement; Microsoft doesn’t individually tailor it for each customer (especially in the “breadth” model via partners). That means what you sign is what you get – fewer avenues to insert your own protective clauses. For most straightforward cloud usage this is fine, but if your legal team or compliance requires certain contract language, you might find MCA limiting. Microsoft’s pitch is that the MCA’s standard terms are “simpler” and more modern, but be mindful that “simpler” also means less room to negotiate unique needs.
• Support and Account Management: Under an MCA, you might not have a dedicated Microsoft account manager unless you are a very large customer. Smaller organizations under the MCA often transact either directly via the portal or through a partner, such as a Cloud Solution Provider (CSP). If you go direct with Microsoft (typically, if you’re a big cloud consumer, Microsoft might sign you to an MCA “Enterprise Motion” directly), you’ll have a Microsoft representative. Still, the relationship is more transactional than an EA’s strategic engagement. If you go through a CSP partner (MCA “Breadth Motion”), that partner provides some account management and support. In any case, support is not automatically bundled – you’d either rely on included basic support for Azure (which is minimal) or purchase a support plan (like Azure Standard/Premier support) separately. The MCA itself doesn’t include Software Assurance, as SA is a concept tied to perpetual licenses. Cloud subscriptions under MCA inherently come with whatever support or upgrade rights are included in the subscription. So, for example, if you were using Windows Server with SA under an EA, moving that to an MCA world means you’d likely be buying it as a subscription license (or via CSP), which has its own benefits but not the traditional SA extras.

In short, the MCA is best for organizations that prioritize cloud flexibility over long-term commitment. It’s ideal for those who mainly use Azure and want to pay for cloud services as they go, or those who don’t meet the size threshold (or desire) for an EA.

Microsoft Customer Agreement simplifies procurement and lets you avoid contractual lock-in, but it doesn’t automatically grant the deep discounts or special perks that an EA might. It’s the agile, on-demand approach to Microsoft licensing.

Key Differences – EA vs MCA

Let’s put the Enterprise Agreement and Microsoft Customer Agreement side by side. Below is a comparison of key factors and how each model works:

As the table shows, an EA and an MCA differ in fundamental ways. The EA is all about commitment and predictability – you promise to stick with Microsoft for a few years and, in return, get negotiated pricing and support.

The MCA is all about flexibility and simplicity – you can use Microsoft cloud services on your term,s but largely pay list prices and manage things yourself. Next, we’ll discuss how to decide between them for your Azure needs.

When to Use EA vs MCA for Azure

When does an EA make sense for Azure? Generally, large enterprises with broad Microsoft needs should consider staying on an EA. If your organization has well over 500 users, uses a mix of Microsoft products (e.g. Windows, Office 365, SQL Server, plus Azure), and values having one big contract to cover everything, the EA is designed for you. It allows centralized license management for your whole portfolio.

For Azure specifically, an EA is a good fit if you plan to consume a significant, steady amount of Azure services. By committing to that consumption, you can negotiate better Azure pricing than the standard rates, which can translate to substantial savings at scale.

Also, if your finance team likes price protection and forecasting, the EA’s 3-year locked pricing on licenses (and possibly negotiated Azure discounts) helps avoid surprises.

Enterprises that require custom contract terms (due to compliance, data handling, or other needs) also lean toward EAs, because you can negotiate amendments in an EA more readily than under an MCA.

In short, choose EA for Azure if you are a large, multi-product Microsoft shop that values discounts and isn’t shy about long-term commitments. The EA can be financially advantageous when you have the bargaining power of size.

It’s also useful if you want to bundle Azure with other Microsoft investments. For example, you want a single agreement that covers your Office 365 subscriptions, Windows OS licenses, and Azure cloud usage all together.

With an EA, you get unified oversight of all that usage in one contract and often an assigned Microsoft team that understands your environment.

When does an MCA make sense for Azure? The MCA shines for smaller or cloud-first organizations and any scenario where flexibility is a priority. If your company is primarily leveraging Azure and maybe a handful of other cloud services, and you don’t want to be locked into a 3-year obligation, MCA is attractive.

Startups and mid-size companies often prefer MCA because you can start with a small Azure footprint and rapidly expand or contract as needed, without having to wait for a true-up or worry about contract penalties.

Also, suppose you do not meet the EA minimum seat count or simply don’t use many Microsoft products beyond Azure.

In that case, an MCA is the obvious choice – Microsoft won’t even offer an EA if you’re below the threshold or only want a tiny amount of services.

Another great use case for MCA is if your Azure workloads are highly variable or experimental. For example, say you’re doing a short-term big data project in Azure for 6 months. Under an EA, you might have had to commit some budget for it for the full year (or find other uses for Azure afterwards).

Under MCA, you run the project for 6 months, pay for exactly 6 months of usage, and then shut it down with no ongoing cost. That elasticity is valuable if you have cyclical or unpredictable demand.

Also, for organizations adopting a “cloud-first” strategy with agile development, the MCA aligns culturally – teams can spin up resources when needed without having to route every decision through a centralized licensing true-up process.

One more scenario: if your EA is expiring and your non-Azure usage (like on-prem licenses) is dropping, moving to an MCA might save money.

For instance, some companies initially entered an EA when they had numerous on-premises Windows and Office licensing needs, as well as some Azure requirements. Years later, they might have shifted mostly to cloud services.

At that point, renewing a full EA might be overkill; switching to an MCA for Azure and perhaps separate subscriptions for Microsoft 365 could be more cost-effective and simpler.

Microsoft’s newer licensing programs are nudging in this direction for pure cloud consumption.

In summary, opt for MCA for Azure if you value no lock-in, have uncertain or fluctuating cloud usage, or are too small to get big EA discounts. It’s about staying agile and avoiding the “enterprise paperwork” that comes with an EA.

Negotiation and Strategy Considerations

Whether you choose to stay on an EA or move to an MCA for Azure, approach the decision strategically.

Microsoft’s sales teams have their own goals (often pushing cloud adoption and new deal structures), so put your needs first and negotiate hard. Here are some considerations and tactics:

• If you’re renewing or staying with an EA, leverage your scale to get the best deal possible. Microsoft wants to keep large customers in the EA program, especially if you’re considering jumping ship to MCA or a competitor’s cloud. Use that as bargaining power. Negotiate Azure discounts beyond the standard. For example, if your Azure spend is big, push for a higher discount tier or special pricing on key services (maybe you need a lot of VM usage or SQL Database – ask for extra % off those rates). Also, try to negotiate price caps or protections for the term – e.g., ensure that any Azure list price increases won’t affect you, or that your currency exchange rate is fixed if that’s a factor. Microsoft has been known to include clauses to protect large customers from certain price hikes within the EA period. If Azure is a major part of your EA, negotiate flexible consumption terms: perhaps the ability to carry over unused Azure commitments to the next year, or an upfront Azure credit from Microsoft to offset costs. Everything is negotiable at renewal time when Microsoft is eager to secure your signature for three more years.
• Maximize Software Assurance and Benefits: If you maintain an EA, make sure you’re fully using the benefits you pay for. Software Assurance offers training vouchers, planning services days, and support incidents – these can be leveraged to offset other costs (for example, use planning days to fund an Azure architecture workshop). Also, ask for free or discounted services as part of the deal. Microsoft might throw in some Azure credits or free consulting hours to sweeten an EA renewal. Ensure any EA renewals align with your cloud strategy – if you expect Azure usage to grow, negotiate that into the EA (maybe a structured growth discount: as you spend more, you get a bigger discount).
• If you’re considering moving to MCA: Don’t assume you have zero negotiating power just because the MCA is a “standard” agreement. If you are a sizable customer (for example, you plan to spend a few million a year on Azure via MCA), talk to Microsoft or your partner about incentives. Microsoft can offer consumption commitment discounts even outside an EA. Essentially, you might sign a simpler MCA but separately agree to spend a certain amount on Azure over a year or more – in return, Microsoft could provide a rebate or discounted Azure rates on that usage. These are sometimes called Azure consumption commitments or “MACC” (Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitments). While not as formalized as EA discounts, large customers absolutely can get better-than-list pricing under an MCA if they negotiate it. The key is to let Microsoft know you’re serious about Azure and willing to commit to spending in exchange for a price break. Additionally, if you’re moving to an MCA via a Cloud Solution Provider, shop around for a good CSP partner. CSPs set their own margins, so a large CSP might offer you a small percentage off Azure or bundle in value-added services (like enhanced support or cost optimization tools) as a benefit of going with them. Use that competitive dynamic to your advantage.
• Hybrid Approach: Who says you must choose one or the other for everything? Some enterprises adopt a hybrid licensing strategy. For example, you might keep an EA for your core Microsoft products (say, Office 365, Windows, and core server licenses that you know are steady-state) and use an MCA for more dynamic needs like Azure development/test environments or new pilot projects. Another scenario is using MCA (via CSP) for smaller subsidiaries or geographic divisions that are too small to be included efficiently in a central EA. They get the flexibility of pay-as-you-go, while the headquarters maintains an EA for major items. Microsoft’s licensing is complex, so savvy organizations sometimes split workloads between agreements to optimize cost and flexibility. If you do this, be aware of management overhead: you’ll deal with multiple portals and bills, and you’ll need governance to ensure compliance across both EA and MCA. Still, a hybrid approach can be a stepping stone – you might test MCA with a part of your estate to see how it works before deciding to move everything at the next renewal.
• Watch for Microsoft’s Goals: Keep in mind that Microsoft’s field reps might have quotas or incentives tied to pushing one program or the other. In recent years, Microsoft has demonstrated a strong interest in transitioning customers to the CSP/MCA model for Azure, likely due to its streamlining of sales and potential to increase consumption. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s best for you. Always ask, “What do we gain by switching, and what do we lose?” If the benefits the rep describes sound one-sided (only helping Microsoft), be skeptical. For example, a rep might say, “MCA will simplify your admin experience.” Sure, the portal might be nicer than VLSC – but is that worth losing a 15% Azure discount you had in your EA? Make Microsoft articulate the customer-side benefits, and use a potential move to MCA as a negotiation chip: you might get a better EA offer if they think you’ll leave, or conversely, if you agree to go MCA, maybe they’ll throw in some free Azure credits. The point is to ensure your strategy (EA or MCA) serves your organization’s interests first.
• Internal Cost Management: Finally, a strategy note independent of Microsoft’s side: if you go the MCA route, you must implement strong cost management and governance. Without the discipline of a contract cap, it’s easy for Azure spending to sprawl month-to-month. Invest in cloud cost management tools (Azure Cost Management, or third-party FinOps tools) and processes. Set budgets and alerts on your Azure subscriptions. The flexibility of MCA means responsibility is on you to avoid waste – there’s no true-up event to true-down licenses or an upcoming renewal to force a cleanup. Conversely, if you stick with EA, keep track of usage so you’re not caught off guard at true-up or renewal. Both models require oversight, just of different kinds (EA = compliance and true-up tracking; MCA = continuous cost optimization).

Checklist – EA or MCA Decision Factors

Not sure which agreement fits your situation? Go through this quick checklist of decision factors. If you find yourself answering “yes” to a point, it may indicate a lean toward one side or the other:

✓ Do you have more than 500 users and a broad Microsoft footprint (Windows, Office, etc.) beyond Azure?
＊Yes:＊ An EA might suit you, as it’s designed for large, enterprise-wide licensing needs.
＊No:＊ If you’re much smaller or Azure is your main focus, MCA could be a better fit without the big contract overhead.

✓ Is long-term price protection more important to you than month-to-month flexibility?
＊Yes:＊ EA – locking in prices for 3 years and securing discounts via commitment is valuable to you.
＊No:＊ MCA – you prefer the ability to adjust services freely, even if it means pricing could change over time.

✓ Do you need dedicated Microsoft account management and premier support engagement?
＊Yes:＊ EA – you’ll benefit from the higher-touch relationship that comes with being an EA customer (Microsoft and partners will give you more attention).
＊No:＊ MCA – if you’re fine with self-service and occasional partner help, you don’t need the extras that an EA’s structure provides.

✓ Are you a cloud-first organization with highly variable or unpredictable Azure consumption?
＊Yes:＊ MCA – the pay-as-you-go model aligns perfectly with variable usage and agile projects.
＊No:＊ EA – if your Azure use is fairly steady or you’re running long-term stable workloads, you can commit to a certain level and get discounts on it.

✓ Do you prefer shorter or no-term commitments (evergreen contracts) over multi-year obligations?
＊Yes:＊ MCA – you’ll appreciate the freedom to not be tied into a multi-year deal.
＊No:＊ EA – if you’re comfortable planning 3 years out and want the assurance of a formal agreement, EA provides that structure.

This checklist isn’t a binary answer key, but it highlights your priorities. In reality, many organizations find some answers point to EA, others to MCA – that’s when you need to weigh which factors carry more weight for your strategy.

FAQs

Q: Can MCA customers still get discounts on Azure?
A: Yes, but it usually requires action. Out of the box, an MCA is typically billed at standard rates. However, if your Azure consumption is large, you can negotiate with Microsoft or work with a Cloud Solution Provider to get better pricing. For instance, Microsoft might offer you a discount or rebate if you commit to spending a certain amount on Azure over a year (even under an MCA). Additionally, MCA customers can use Azure cost-saving options like Reserved Instances or Azure Savings Plans, which provide discounted rates for committing to specific resources or spend levels for 1-3 years. Those options are available regardless of EA or MCA and can yield significant savings (often 20-50% off specific services). So, while the MCA itself doesn’t automatically give volume discounts like an EA, savvy MCA customers can still lower costs through these mechanisms. If working through a CSP partner, the partner might also offer a slight discount or added credit based on your volume, since the CSP has its own pricing from Microsoft. Always ask and shop around – you’re not obliged to pay full retail if your usage warrants a better deal.

Q: Does MCA include Software Assurance (SA) benefits?
A: No, the Microsoft Customer Agreement by itself doesn’t include traditional Software Assurance. SA is a benefits program tied to volume licensing agreements (such as EA or Microsoft Products & Services Agreement) for on-premises software, providing benefits like upgrade rights, training vouchers, and home-use programs. Under an MCA, if you’re only consuming cloud services (Azure, Microsoft 365, etc.), those services come with their own subscription benefits (for example, Microsoft 365 includes updates as part of the subscription, Azure includes security patches and improvements as part of the service). But if you still need Software Assurance equivalents (say, for Windows Server or SQL Server running in your data center), you’d have to either keep those licenses under an EA/MPSA or switch to subscription licenses. Some organizations moving to MCA will convert their on-premises licenses to subscription-based licensing (such as Windows Server Subscription or SQL Server Subscription), available via CSP/MCA, which provides similar rights to SA (including continuous updates and flexibility to move to cloud/hybrid use). Be aware that if you rely heavily on SA perks, such as long-term support or license mobility, plan for how to maintain those benefits when leaving an EA.

Q: Can we mix MCA and EA across business units or for different purposes?
A: Yes, it’s possible to use both models in one organization, though it adds complexity. Microsoft doesn’t forbid having multiple agreements. For example, a corporation might maintain an EA for its main operations and core users, but utilize an MCA for a new subsidiary or a specific project that requires more flexibility. In Azure, you could have some subscriptions under an EA enrollment and others under an MCA (they would be managed separately, however). Some companies do this to segregate experimental or variable workloads (MCA) from steady production workloads (EA), or to handle acquisitions and divestitures without entangling licensing. Just keep in mind that mixing means separate billing and management: you’d receive invoices in different ways (EA tends to annual billing for commits plus quarterly Azure overage bills, MCA is monthly billing), and your admins will manage Azure resources in different enrollment contexts. You should also ensure you don’t double-pay or overlap licenses. For instance, if you have Office 365 in your EA for all users, you wouldn’t want another group buying Office 365 separately under MCA – that would complicate true-ups and possibly lose volume discount. But Azure is often easier to separate; an isolated project team can run its Azure under MCA without affecting the EA. In summary, mixing is doable and sometimes beneficial, but it is essential to coordinate internally to avoid confusion.

Q: Is the MCA part of “RISE with SAP” or other bundled cloud programs?
A: Not exactly. RISE with SAP is a program where SAP offers its software on a cloud subscription basis, and it includes cloud infrastructure (which might be Azure, AWS, or Google Cloud) bundled into the SAP contract. If you go with RISE and choose Azure as the infrastructure, you don’t directly sign a Microsoft MCA for that Azure usage – your contract is with SAP, and SAP manages the Azure resources behind the scenes. In that scenario, the Azure consumption is under SAP’s agreements with the cloud providers. So, MCA doesn’t really come into play for the customer in a RISE deal. It’s similar for other third-party bundles: if a service provider is packaging Azure as part of their offering, you might not need your own MCA for that portion. However, if you have other Azure usage outside of the SAP RISE scope, you’d still use an EA or MCA for that. In general, MCA is a direct agreement with Microsoft. Bundled programs (RISE, Oracle Cloud at Customer, etc.) have their own terms, so you should evaluate those separately. Always clarify what kind of cloud contract you’re entering when you go through a third party. If your organization is considering a bundle like RISE, factor in that you won’t have direct control or Azure discounts through MCA/EA for that environment – the pricing and terms are through SAP. For other Microsoft-specific bundles or promotions (like Microsoft might have special offers for Azure if you’re an SAP customer, etc.), those would typically still operate under your EA or MCA, just with extra discount addenda.

Q: Which is cheaper for Azure in the long run – EA or MCA?
A: The classic answer: “It depends.” Neither EA nor MCA is inherently always cheaper; it comes down to your usage profile and ability to negotiate. Here’s how to think about it: If your Azure usage is high and relatively steady, an EA can often be cheaper because you’ll secure a volume discount on that steady consumption. For example, a company spending $1 million/year on Azure under EA might negotiate a 15% discount compared to pay-as-you-go rates – saving $150k a year, which over 3 years is significant. Additionally, the EA can lock in pricing for 3 years on certain services, shielding you if Microsoft raises rates. On the other hand, if your usage is small, growing, or spiky, an EA’s commitments could end up costing more. With an EA, you might over-commit to a spend and then struggle to use it fully (wasting money), or you might be paying for reserved capacity that sits idle at times. An MCA ensures you only pay for what you actually use, which is inherently efficient if you’re careful.

Also consider resource optimization: Under either model, you should use Azure’s own cost-saving options. Reserved Instances and Savings Plans (which require 1 or 3-year commitments to specific resources or spend levels) can yield the same discounts whether you’re on EA or MCA. They effectively narrow the cost difference between EA and MCA by offering discounts to those who plan. In the long run, an MCA with smart use of reservations could cost less than an under-negotiated EA.

Moreover, administrative cost matters: an EA has negotiation overhead and possibly some unused extras; an MCA is leaner. Some CFOs have noted that the EA’s promised savings only materialize if you fully utilize what you paid for – otherwise, your effective cost per unit might be higher. MCA avoids that issue by nature. Finally, keep in mind support costs: EA customers might have to buy a Premier Support contract due to their size, whereas a smaller MCA customer might stick with a lower-cost support plan – that can factor into the total cost of ownership.

In summary, cheaper in the long run depends on your scenario. If you can accurately forecast and commit to a high Azure usage, EA’s discounts can pay off. If you need the freedom to only pay for what you use (and your usage might drop or fluctuate), MCA can save you from overpaying. It’s wise to do a side-by-side cost projection: take your expected 3-year Azure consumption, price it under EA (with whatever discount tier you’d likely get) versus under MCA with no discount but perhaps using reserved instance savings. That exercise will tell you which path yields lower costs for your specific case.

Which program fits your organization? – EA vs. MPSA vs. CSP: Choosing the Right Microsoft Licensing Program.

Five Expert Recommendations

To wrap up, here are five expert tips when evaluating an Enterprise Agreement vs. a Microsoft Customer Agreement for Azure:

1. Benchmark Azure Costs Under Both Models: Before deciding, run the numbers. Obtain a pricing quote for your Azure environment under an EA (include any discounts Microsoft is offering) and compare it to pay-as-you-go costs under MCA. Factor in reserved instance savings in both scenarios. This benchmark will reveal the real $$ difference and help you make an informed choice grounded in data, not assumptions.
2. Leverage MCA for Pilots & Spiky Workloads: Even if you maintain an EA for your main environment, consider using an MCA (or a CSP arrangement) for pilot projects, one-off experiments, or workloads that are highly variable. The MCA’s flexibility means you can deploy temporary resources without impacting your EA commitments. It’s a great way to “sandbox” new initiatives. If they succeed and become long-term, you can always fold them into the EA at the next renewal — or keep them on MCA if that still makes more sense.
3. Negotiate EA Protections and Perks: If you go with an EA, don’t just sign whatever is put in front of you. Negotiate not only on price, but also rate protections (like caps on Azure price increases, or fixed exchange rates if you’re in a non-US currency), and extras such as expanded support or consulting services. Microsoft wants your three-year commitment, so ask for concessions: perhaps an additional Azure credit fund, or contractual flexibility like the ability to reduce some portion of your Azure commitment if your cloud strategy changes. A savvy negotiation can make an EA almost as flexible as an MCA, but with the benefit of better pricing.
4. Push for Discounts with MCA Commitments: If you choose the MCA path and anticipate significant spend, proactively seek out ways to reduce costs. For instance, tell your Microsoft rep or partner, “We plan to spend $X on Azure next year via MCA. What can you do for us in terms of pricing?” This might lead to a Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitment deal where you agree on a target spend and get a rebate or discount. Also, maximize built-in savings: use one-year or three-year Azure Reservations/Savings Plans for any stable workloads — this is akin to making mini-commitments on specific resources to get up to 60% off those, without having an EA. In short, even under MCA, don’t settle for paying full price if your cloud usage is substantial.
5. Reassess at Every Renewal (No Auto-Pilot): The biggest mistake is to simply “rubber-stamp” your previous agreement when it’s up for renewal. Every time your EA is ending, or annually for MCA, revisit your decision. Your organization’s needs evolve, and Microsoft’s licensing programs evolve too. What was best three years ago might not be best now. For example, maybe three years ago you needed an EA for a big Windows 10 deployment — but now everyone’s on Microsoft 365 and your remaining on-prem footprint is small, so an MCA + Microsoft 365 subscription approach might save money. Alternatively, maybe your Azure usage has skyrocketed, and now an EA with a high discount tier could save more. Always go back to the drawing board, evaluate your options (EA, MCA, CSP, or even alternatives like AWS/GCP if that’s on the table), and choose the path that aligns with your current strategy and gives the most value. Microsoft licensing should never be “set it and forget it.” Each renewal or budget cycle, treat it as an opportunity to optimize and potentially renegotiate for better terms.

Read about our Microsoft Services

Do you want to know more about our Microsoft Advisory Services?

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

Email *

Company

Message *

Submit