Azure vs AWS: Using Cloud Pricing Comparisons to Strengthen Your Microsoft Negotiation

Azure vs AWS: Using Cloud Pricing Comparisons to Strengthen Your Microsoft Negotiation

In enterprise cloud deals, knowledge is power – especially when comparing Azure vs AWS cost factors. Microsoft will often push Azure as the default choice, assuming you won’t look elsewhere. But savvy CIOs and FinOps managers know better.

By pitting Azure’s pricing against AWS (and even Google Cloud) cost benchmarks, you create leverage. Cloud pricing can become your secret weapon in a Microsoft negotiation, forcing transparency and better discounts.

Microsoft is highly sensitive to AWS competition; the mere hint that you’re evaluating AWS or multi-cloud options puts pressure on them. Read our CIO guide to Negotiating Microsoft Azure Enterprise Agreements.

In short, cloud pricing negotiation data shifts the power dynamic in your favor, letting you demand more from your Azure deal.

Azure vs AWS Cost Benchmarks: Where the Differences Show

Not all cloud services are priced equally. A careful multi-cloud cost comparison reveals where Azure is costlier and where it might have an edge. By identifying these differences, you can target specific negotiation points.

Here are key areas to benchmark:

Virtual Machine Pricing (Linux vs Windows Workloads)

For basic compute, Azure and AWS on-demand VM pricing is often neck-and-neck. For example, a standard Linux VM might cost roughly the same per hour on both platforms (differences can be within a few percent).

AWS bills by the second (with a 60-second minimum), whereas Azure bills by the minute – a minor distinction that gives AWS a slight savings for ultra-short tasks.

In practice, for long-running Linux workloads, Azure vs AWS VM pricing is nearly identical, so you can treat them as commodity pricing.

However, Windows workloads are a different story. Microsoft leverages its ownership of Windows Server to make Azure more attractive for Windows-based VMs.

With the Azure Hybrid Benefit (AHB), you can apply existing Windows Server or SQL Server licenses to Azure VMs, cutting those VM rates by up to 30-50%. AWS has no direct equivalent to AHB (while you can bring licenses to AWS in certain cases, it’s not as streamlined).

This means out of the box, a Windows VM could be cheaper on Azure than AWS. Microsoft will pitch this advantage hard, claiming scenarios where Azure costs “up to 50% less” than AWS for Windows servers.

Negotiation tip: Acknowledge Azure’s Windows VM savings, but also note if AWS Savings Plans or long-term commitments on AWS could narrow that gap.

Ensure Microsoft knows you are aware of both sides of the coin.

Storage Costs (Block Storage vs Object Storage)

Storage pricing is another area to benchmark. For block storage (disks attached to VMs, like Azure Managed Disks vs AWS EBS volumes), both clouds charge based on capacity and performance tier.

The differences here can creep in through specific workloads: e.g., high-performance SSD volumes might be priced differently between Azure and AWS. If AWS offers a certain IOPS tier cheaper, use that as a negotiation point for similar Azure disk types.

Conversely, if Azure’s disk pricing is lower in your scenario, highlight that you expect to maintain or improve that advantage in your deal.

For object storage (unstructured data in the cloud, like Azure Blob Storage vs Amazon S3), baseline prices per GB are similar, but there are nuances.

Both offer tiered storage (hot, cool, archive in Azure; standard, infrequent access, Glacier in AWS) with varying rates. One provider might charge less per GB for infrequent storage but more for data retrieval or egress.

For instance, AWS S3’s standard storage might be slightly cheaper per GB than Azure Hot Blob storage, but Azure could have lower egress fees in certain regions. Identify where Azure vs AWS storage pricing differs for your data patterns (ingress/egress, API calls, etc.). If AWS comes out cheaper for a heavy-storage workload, bring that to Microsoft’s attention and demand discount parity on Azure storage.

Microsoft often has the flexibility to provide extra storage credits or match AWS’s rates in large deals when pressed.

Database Hosting (Azure SQL vs AWS RDS & More)

Databases are often expensive to run in the cloud, so even small price differences add up. When comparing Azure vs AWS for databases, consider both managed services and VM-based options.

For example, Azure SQL Database (a PaaS service) vs Amazon RDS for SQL Server pricing: Microsoft might charge a premium for certain DTU/vCore tiers, whereas AWS RDS might have a different pricing model (license-included vs bring-your-own-license).

In many cases, Azure’s Hybrid Benefit extends to SQL Server licenses, too – meaning if you already own SQL licenses, Azure allows you to use them on Azure SQL or SQL Server on Azure VMs for a big discount.

AWS will require you to either use license-included instances (raising the cost) or manage license mobility for SQL on EC2.

Beyond SQL Server, compare other databases: e.g., Azure’s open-source database services (MySQL, PostgreSQL) vs AWS RDS equivalents.

They’re usually within a similar range, but differences in instance types or storage costs could make one cloud cheaper. Database hosting differences can be leveraged by highlighting, for instance, that “AWS offers MySQL at $X/hour while Azure’s equal service is $X+15% – we need Azure to come down.”

Microsoft sales teams don’t want database workload migrations to AWS, since databases often anchor many other services. Use that to push for a better rate or credits for Azure database services if AWS has an edge in your cost analysis.

Try out our strategies, Tactics to Secure Azure Pricing Discounts and Credits in Your EA.

Microsoft’s Built-In Advantages (and How They Pitch Them)

Microsoft isn’t blind to AWS’s competitive threat – in fact, they have built-in advantages they will eagerly pitch to keep you on Azure.

As a negotiator, you should understand these enterprise cloud cost comparison points, acknowledge them, but also question them. Here are the key benefits Microsoft will tout (and how to counter them):

Azure Hybrid Benefit for Windows/SQL

Azure Hybrid Benefit (AHB) is one of Microsoft’s strongest value propositions for customers running Microsoft software. It allows you to apply existing on-premises licenses for Windows Server or SQL Server to Azure VMs or Azure SQL Database.

The pitch: Azure can be far cheaper for Windows and SQL workloads – sometimes up to 40-50% lower cost – because you’re not paying for a new license in the cloud.

Microsoft will emphasize that AWS cannot match this for Windows workloads (AWS has no “free” Windows license program; you either pay AWS’s license-included rate or navigate a complex bring-your-own-license process).

This is true to an extent: if you have a significant investment in Microsoft licenses, Azure might indeed lower your TCO for those workloads through AHB.

Your move: Calculate how much AHB actually saves you and include that in your Azure vs AWS TCO model. Then remember: AWS often counters with its own savings mechanisms.

AWS Savings Plans and Reserved Instances can reduce compute costs by 40-70% if you commit to usage. In some cases, even a Windows VM on AWS with a long-term discount might rival Azure’s AHB-discounted price. Highlight to Microsoft that you’re considering those AWS commitment discounts.

This signals that while AHB is attractive, it’s not a lock-in – you still expect Azure’s base rates to be competitive, not just “competitive after applying your own licenses.”

Enterprise Agreement Discounts and Bundles

If you’re under a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) or a large Azure consumption commitment, Microsoft likely offers standard discount tiers (e.g., X% off list prices) and incentive funds.

Microsoft will pitch that staying all-in with Azure under an EA yields the best overall deal – you get volume-based discounts across services, and maybe special pricing for development/test workloads, etc.

They might bundle Azure credits or use-your-commit funds, which sound generous.

Reality check: AWS (and Google Cloud) also offer enterprise discount programs for big spends. In negotiations, Microsoft vs AWS negotiation leverage often comes down to who will give the bigger custom discount. Microsoft’s first offer, even under an EA, is rarely its best.

They assume many customers won’t seriously consider switching. By bringing up AWS, you signal that those EA discounts need to improve. For example, if Microsoft’s initial offer is a 10% discount but you know AWS could give 15% for a similar spend, call it out.

Microsoft has the authority to do “cloud price match” style adjustments in big deals – not an official policy, but in practice, they will create custom discounts or credits to win a competitive deal.

Also, watch out for bundles: Microsoft might bundle Azure with Microsoft 365 or other products. While this can lower Azure costs on paper, it might also lock you in.

Keep the Azure pricing discussion separate and transparent to truly gauge if it’s competitive with AWS.

Calculating True TCO vs AWS

Microsoft will often argue that the total cost of ownership (TCO) of Azure is lower when you consider “everything” – not just raw prices, but also factors like existing Microsoft license investments, integration with other Microsoft tools, and even potential migration costs of moving to AWS.

Some of their points have merit (e.g. if you already use Azure Active Directory, integrating Azure services might require less overhead than migrating identity management to AWS’s equivalent).

However, as a negotiator, you should do your own holistic TCO analysis:

• Include all discounts and incentives: Factor in your EA discounts, Azure Hybrid Benefit, and any Azure credits on the Microsoft side, and compare against AWS’s reserved instance pricing, savings plans, and any incentive offers (AWS often provides credits for new large customers, too). An Azure vs. AWS TCO comparison must be apples-to-apples, including discounts over 3-5 years.
• Consider support and operational costs: If your team is only skilled in one platform, the other might incur training costs. However, this can be mitigated by cross-training or hiring, and Microsoft should not overcharge you simply because they think switching costs protect them. (Also note: AWS enterprise support pricing might differ from Microsoft’s – another angle to push on if relevant.)
• Account for performance and usage patterns: A cheaper service isn’t truly cheaper if you need 2x as many resources due to performance differences. Ensure your benchmarks include performance parity (e.g., if Azure VMs give slightly more RAM or throughput for a service, factor that in, and vice versa with AWS). Microsoft might claim Azure’s infrastructure is more efficient for Microsoft workloads (“runs SQL faster,” etc.); test those claims if possible.

By calculating a neutral TCO, you can go to Microsoft and say, “Here’s what three years on Azure will cost us with your current offer vs. three years on AWS.” If AWS looks better, that’s powerful leverage.

If Azure looks better, double-check if Microsoft’s numbers rely on you using AHB or other benefits – essentially, your existing investments. Either way, presenting a rigorous TCO comparison tells Microsoft you mean business and won’t accept any cloud pricing fluff.

Using AWS Pricing in Microsoft Negotiations

Now comes the tactical application: using your AWS pricing research directly in negotiations with Microsoft. The goal is to weaponize these multi-cloud cost benchmarks to extract a better Azure deal.

Here’s how to do it effectively:

• Come with hard data: Don’t just vaguely say “AWS is cheaper.” Be specific. For example: “For 100 TB of geo-redundant storage, AWS quoted us $X, while Azure effectively costs $X+15%. That’s a $Y difference.” Concrete numbers on critical workloads get Microsoft’s attention. It shows you’ve done your homework.
• Present it in RFP style: Some organizations formalize this by running a mini cloud request for proposal (RFP). They’ll ask AWS, Azure (and sometimes Google) to quote prices for a defined set of workloads or usage levels. Even if you don’t formally go to AWS for a quote, you can use public pricing calculators to simulate this. Document the comparison as if you’re genuinely ready to consider the lowest bidder. Sharing a summary in a negotiation meeting (or including it in a counter-proposal) makes Microsoft visibly uncomfortable – which is what you want. It forces them to address the pricing gaps.
• Leverage the “we’re evaluating AWS” message: Explicitly let Microsoft know that AWS (and/or GCP) is on the table. Even without divulging too many details, statements like “Our leadership is reviewing AWS’s offer next week” or “We have a parallel analysis going on with AWS to ensure we make the best choice” can change the tone of the negotiation. Microsoft reps may escalate your deal to higher management once they sense a real risk of losing to AWS.
• Demand Azure match or beat specific prices: If your analysis finds AWS is, say, 20% cheaper for a certain workload, ask Microsoft to either match that AWS price or compensate the difference. This could be via a direct unit price reduction or via credits. For instance: “AWS would cost $500k less for our storage over 3 years – we need Azure to close that gap, either by a rate reduction or upfront credit.” You’d be surprised how often Microsoft concedes when faced with clear evidence that you could save big by going to a competitor.

Using AWS pricing as a negotiation tool is all about credibility. You’re sending a message: we are informed, we have options, and we won’t hesitate to exercise them. That often spurs Microsoft to improve an offer that was previously “best and final.”

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Comparisons

Short-term pricing is one thing, but enterprises care about the total cost over 3–5 years (or more). Microsoft salespeople know this and will try to frame Azure as the better long-term bet. You should counter by modeling multi-year scenarios for Azure vs AWS, including the negotiated terms you’re seeking.

Here’s how to make TCO comparisons work for you:

• Model different terms: Look at 1-year, 3-year, and even 5-year horizons. Include cloud inflation (both Azure and AWS have raised prices on certain services historically – though often storage/egress rather than core compute). Demand price protections if possible, especially for longer commitments.
• Include growth and flexibility: Maybe AWS is cheaper today, but Azure promises a bigger discount if you grow your usage by 50%. Or vice versa. Model your expected growth on each platform. Also consider exit costs: if you needed to migrate off Azure in year 4 vs shifting off AWS, what are the cost implications? Use these to argue for flexibility terms in your Azure contract.
• Factor migration and training costs: If you did switch some workloads to AWS, there’d be one-time migration costs. While you might not actually plan to migrate, showing that you’ve thought of these costs makes your threat more credible. It also allows you to say, “Even factoring migration, AWS would save us $X over three years – so Azure needs to do better than $X in concessions to make staying worthwhile.”

To visualize the comparison, consider preparing a simple table summarizing a few key workloads and how Azure and AWS stack up, both at list prices and after your negotiation. For example:

Example TCO Comparison of Key Workloads (3-Year Costs)

Illustrative figures for concept only. Azure costs assume Enterprise Agreement level pricing and Azure Hybrid Benefit applied on Windows/SQL workload. Negotiated Azure reflects additional concessions achieved.

In this simplified scenario, Azure’s initial pricing was slightly higher than AWS for the Linux and storage workloads. Still, Azure was better for the Windows workload due to the Hybrid Benefit.

After negotiation, Azure matched AWS on storage costs by providing credits and further reduced the Linux workload costs through higher discounts – bringing the total 3-year Azure cost below AWS.

This is the ideal outcome you aim for in negotiations: use AWS’s numbers to drive Azure’s offer down until Azure becomes the cost-effective choice.

Multi-Cloud Strategy as Negotiation Leverage

The best negotiators position themselves as vendor-agnostic – you want Microsoft to believe that Azure is not your only option (and in reality, that should be true to some extent).

Adopting a multi-cloud negotiation strategy means you openly consider multiple cloud providers for different needs and make that fact clear in discussions.

This approach yields multiple benefits:

• Credible threat of moving: If Microsoft knows you have workloads ready to go on AWS or Google Cloud Platform (GCP), they will think twice before giving you a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Even if you don’t plan to move everything, the ability to move critical pieces is powerful leverage. We often see that just mentioning an AWS pilot or a cost comparison with GCP spurs Microsoft to come back with sharper discounts or extra incentives. They understand they must compete for your business.
• Avoiding vendor lock-in: Emphasize that your company values flexibility and will choose the best cloud for each workload. If Azure tries to lock you in with heavy commitments or proprietary services, you have alternatives. This mindset pressures Microsoft to keep Azure attractive. (It also has a side benefit: you genuinely reduce risk by not putting all eggs in one basket. Outages, policy changes, or pricing changes in one cloud won’t paralyze you if you’re multi-cloud.)
• Balance bluff and reality: It’s okay if you prefer Azure for many things – maybe due to existing skillsets or integrations. But in negotiation, you must appear perfectly willing to shift to AWS or others. Don’t lie outright, but do lay the groundwork: perhaps run a small workload on AWS or obtain a formal quote from AWS. That way, if Microsoft calls your bluff, you have something to show. The key is making your alternative plan real enough that walking away to AWS isn’t just a bluff. If Microsoft believes you’re serious, your leverage multiplies. Conversely, if they sense you’re all talk and would never actually deploy to AWS, your leverage diminishes.

By adopting a multi-cloud approach, many enterprises have gained leverage in negotiations to secure better terms. Microsoft loves to tout its cloud market share – they are almost obsessed with not losing share to AWS.

Leverage that obsession by making it clear their competitor is at the table. In negotiations, subtle comments like “We’re truly cloud-agnostic – our priority is the best value for the business, whether that’s Azure or not” can put

Microsoft is on the defensive, prompting them to ask, “What will it take to keep more of your workloads on Azure?” – which is exactly what you want to hear.

Negotiation Tactics: Extracting More from Microsoft

Bringing in AWS pricing is one tactic; now, let’s compile a set of concrete negotiation tactics to push Microsoft for the best deal.

Think of these as levers you can pull when Microsoft’s offer still isn’t where you need it to be:

• Demand credits to offset AWS cost advantages: If your analysis shows AWS would save $X on a particular service, ask Microsoft for an equivalent $X in Azure credits or billing relief. This effectively neutralizes the AWS advantage without requiring Microsoft to officially lower the unit price.
• Negotiate price protections on key workloads: If you’re committing to Azure, you should ask for price holds or caps, especially if AWS is committing to a stable price. For example, ensure your negotiated Azure discounts remain in place even if list prices change, or get a clause that Azure pricing for you won’t increase on certain critical services for the contract duration. This guards against Microsoft raising prices or reducing discount percentages in the future. AWS’s long-term contracts naturally lock pricing, so use that to argue for Azure price protection.
• Push for additional incentives (beyond standard discounts): Microsoft has more than one way to sweeten a deal. Ask for extras like free training vouchers, architectural support, or Azure engineering resources to help optimize workloads (which can indirectly save costs). If AWS or GCP offered, say, $100k in migration assistance or free consulting hours, mention it – Microsoft might match with Azure FastTrack assistance or similar programs. Also consider support costs: if you have to pay hefty Azure support fees, mention that AWS includes certain support or that you’re evaluating third-party support; Microsoft might throw in a year of Premier/Unified Support credit to keep you happy.
• Bundle your asks and play them off each other: Don’t negotiate each item in isolation. For instance, you might say, “If you can’t move on the base discount beyond 15%, then I’ll need an extra $300k in credits to cover the gap with AWS and a promise to evaluate pricing again in 12 months.” This signals you have a walk-away point and that Microsoft needs to be flexible on multiple fronts. Often, Microsoft will come back with a package – e.g., a slightly better discount plus some credits and maybe a longer-term commitment from you. Your job is to make sure that the package overall beats the AWS alternative in value.

Throughout these tactics, maintain a firm but partnership-oriented tone. Let Microsoft feel that you want to make it work with Azure, but only if the terms respect the competitive landscape.

By extracting more concessions, you not only save money but also set a precedent that your organization won’t accept boilerplate deals.

Checklist: How to Use AWS Pricing to Lower Azure Costs

To ensure you cover all bases, use this quick checklist when leveraging AWS (or other cloud) pricing in your Azure negotiations:

• Benchmark top workloads across clouds: Identify your biggest-cost workloads and price them out on Azure vs AWS using equivalent configurations. Document any major cost differences.
• Present a neutral TCO analysis: Compile an unbiased cost comparison (including 1-year and multi-year projections). Use charts or tables to make it easy to digest. The goal is to prove you’ve done a thorough analysis.
• Insist on discount parity or better: For any service where AWS comes out cheaper, ask Microsoft to at least match that pricing – if not beat it. Don’t settle for “almost as good” unless there are compensating factors.
• Integrate comparisons into EA negotiations: Make the AWS vs Azure cost comparison part of your formal negotiation agenda. Include it in slide decks or negotiation documents. This signals to Microsoft’s negotiators that every decision maker on your side is aware of the AWS option.
• Leverage Microsoft’s competitive drive: Subtly remind Microsoft reps that AWS and Google are eager for your business. Microsoft’s field teams have quotas and competitive incentives – they really don’t want to report a loss to AWS. Use that knowledge; for example, “We’d prefer to stay on Azure, but leadership won’t approve if it’s even a dime more expensive than AWS.” Statements like this tap into Microsoft’s fear of losing cloud share.

By following this checklist, you create a disciplined approach to cloud cost negotiations. It keeps the discussion fact-based and clearly signals to Microsoft that you are prepared to walk to a competitor if needed.

Read about the services around Azure that you need to negotiate, Negotiating Azure Support and Value-Added Services in Your EA.

Example Scenario: Winning Concessions with AWS Data

Let’s bring it all together with a quick real-world-style scenario. Imagine you’re negotiating a large Azure contract renewal, around $5 million in annual Azure spend.

Your team does its homework and finds that if you moved the same workloads to AWS, it would cost about $4.5 million – primarily because AWS storage pricing for your use case is lower by roughly $500,000 over the year.

You take this finding to Microsoft, essentially saying, “We love Azure’s capabilities, but we can’t ignore a half-million dollar annual saving on the table with AWS.”

Faced with this information, Microsoft scrambles to keep the deal.

They come back with an offer to concede that $500k difference – not by lowering every price outright, but through a combination of measures.

Perhaps they grant a one-time $300k Azure credit specifically for storage costs, and on top of that, they increase your overall Azure discount percentage, which saves you another $200k over the year.

They even extend those improved terms for the next 3 years of your agreement, amounting to a 5% extra discount extension across the board.

The result: Microsoft neutralizes AWS’s advantage by effectively matching the $4.5M cost, and you stay with Azure under much better terms than you would have gotten without the AWS comparison.

In this scenario, AWS pricing data is directly translated into $500,000 of value in your Azure deal. It’s a textbook example of using competition to win concessions.

Microsoft didn’t officially “price-match” AWS in a public way, but behind closed doors, they did exactly that to avoid losing your business.

Your organization walks away with significant cloud savings, and Microsoft retains a customer – a win-win achieved by smart negotiation.

FAQ: Azure vs AWS Pricing in Negotiations

Q1: Does Microsoft price-match AWS?
A1: Not officially, but large deals often get custom discounts or credits to effectively match AWS on key services.

Q2: Can I show AWS quotes to Microsoft?
A2: Yes. Presenting credible AWS (or Google Cloud) quotes or estimates strengthens your negotiation position considerably.

Q3: Is AWS always cheaper than Azure?
A3: No. It varies by workload. In fact, Windows/SQL workloads can cost less on Azure with Hybrid Benefit, while other services might be cheaper on AWS.

Q4: What if we’re already using multiple clouds?
A4: Leverage that position. If Microsoft knows you’re multi-cloud, they must fight harder (with better pricing) to win more of your workloads.

Q5: Can AWS pricing influence our Azure commitment levels?
A5: Absolutely. If AWS cost analysis shows Azure is overpriced, use it to negotiate a lower Azure commitment or higher Azure discounts before signing any agreement.

Read about our Microsoft Negotiation Service

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

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

First

Last

Email *

Company

Message *

Submit