Estates paid for a dozen Software Assurance benefits and exercised two to four of them, at 25 to 29 percent of licence cost every year
Software Assurance is priced as a bundle and consumed as a handful of benefits. The gap between those two facts is a recurring annual charge that renews by default and is almost never tested.
Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 17, 2026 · Microsoft advisory. 30 to 45 Microsoft estate reviews, 2024 to 2025.
Executive summary
Estates tracked 2 to 4 SA benefits in active use out of the dozen or more attached. Between a sixth and a third of what the premium buys is actually consumed, and the rest renews on schedule without review.
SA adds roughly 25 to 29 percent of licence cost per year. Every year, bundled into L plus SA pricing on Enterprise Agreements, whether or not any benefit is exercised.
Rationalising SA per workload cut 15 to 30 percent of SA spend. Without losing a single benefit the estate was actually using, because the saving comes from the unused portion rather than from a reduction in capability.
It is an economics decision, not a default checkbox. The correct question is which benefits you use, priced against the premium, workload by workload rather than estate wide.
What the premium buys
Software Assurance is sold as a package and consumed as individual benefits. Separating the two is the entire exercise.
| Element | The position | What it implies |
|---|---|---|
| The premium | 25 to 29 percent of licence cost, annually | Recurring, not a one off decision |
| Benefits attached | A dozen or more per agreement | The bundle is priced as though all are valuable |
| Benefits used | 2 to 4 across the estates reviewed | A sixth to a third of the bundle is consumed |
| The renewal | Bundled into L plus SA pricing | It carries forward unless someone tests it |
The bundling is what makes this durable rather than obvious. On an Enterprise Agreement, SA is quoted inside L plus SA pricing rather than as a separate line an approver has to sign off. That means the premium never appears as its own decision, the benefit list is never reviewed against usage, and the charge renews for the full term. A cost that nobody has to approve is a cost nobody examines, which is why a 25 to 29 percent annual premium can persist against a two to four benefit consumption rate for years.
Price the benefits you use, and let the rest expire on schedule
Across roughly 30 to 45 Microsoft estate reviews advised on between 2024 and 2025, estates tracked an average of two to four Software Assurance benefits in active use out of the dozen or more attached to their agreements. Software Assurance adds roughly 25 to 29 percent of licence cost per year, bundled into L plus SA pricing on Enterprise Agreements. Put those two figures next to each other and the shape of the problem is clear: the estate is paying a substantial recurring premium for a bundle of which it consumes somewhere between a sixth and a third.
The instinctive reaction is to treat this as an argument for dropping SA, and that is not what the file supports. Some benefits are genuinely valuable and a few are load bearing for particular workloads. The finding is narrower and more useful: SA is an economics decision rather than a default checkbox, and the decision belongs at the workload level rather than the estate level. A workload that uses the deployment rights or the version upgrade rights may well justify the premium. A workload sitting next to it, on the same agreement, using none of them, does not, and it is currently paying the same rate.
That is why the saving is available without loss. Estates that rationalised SA per workload cut 15 to 30 percent of SA spend without losing a benefit the estate actually used. The money comes entirely out of the unconsumed portion, which is why it does not show up as a capability reduction anywhere and why the exercise tends to survive internal challenge. What it requires is a benefit by benefit usage file, which is work, and it is work nobody is prompted to do because the premium never presents itself as a decision.
The practical sequence is five workstreams in order: the licence position, the usage file, the demand forecast, the benchmark and alternatives files, and the ask list drafted before Microsoft drafts theirs, with the executives aligned before the first meeting. The usage file is the one that matters here, because it is the only artefact that converts a bundled premium into a priced choice. Price each benefit you actually use against the 25 to 29 percent premium, and let the rest expire on schedule. The renewal sequence sits in the renewal proposal playbook, the plan question in the E3, E5, and F3 brief, and the library in the Microsoft practice.
- Usage exports analysed: inactive accounts, plan right sizing, per user reassignment
- Your renewal quote benchmarked against real closed Microsoft deals
- Every risky clause flagged with the exact quote, the page, and the replacement language
How to rationalise it
- Build a benefit by benefit usage file, because the premium never presents itself as a decision and nothing else will prompt the review.
- Decide at workload level, not estate level, since a workload using deployment or upgrade rights may justify the premium while the one beside it does not.
- Price each used benefit against the 25 to 29 percent annual premium, which is the only comparison that tells you whether it is worth carrying.
- Let unused benefits expire on schedule rather than cancelling mid term, which is where the 15 to 30 percent comes from without any loss of capability.
- Unbundle SA from L plus SA in your own model, even if the quote will not, so the premium becomes a number an approver sees.
- Run the usage file before the renewal conversation, not during, since a benefit list assembled under quote pressure defaults to renewing everything.
What the estate reviews showed, 2024 to 2025
Across roughly 30 to 45 Microsoft estate reviews:
Out of the dozen or more attached to their agreements, meaning a sixth to a third of the bundle was actually consumed.
Cut by rationalising SA per workload, without losing a single benefit the estate was using.
Software Assurance adds roughly 25 to 29 percent of licence cost per year, bundled into L plus SA pricing on Enterprise Agreements, every year, whether or not a benefit is exercised.
The saving comes entirely from the unconsumed portion, which is why it survives internal challenge and why it does not appear as a capability reduction anywhere in the estate.
Watch the briefing · 4:06Where the Leverage Sits in a Microsoft EAWhich lines are genuinely negotiable, and which renew by default because nobody has to approve them.
Your first five moves
- List every SA benefit attached to the agreement, which is typically a dozen or more and rarely written down anywhere.
- Record which ones were exercised in the last twelve months, by workload, with evidence rather than recollection.
- Price the used ones against the 25 to 29 percent premium to establish which genuinely earn it.
- Plan the unused ones to expire on schedule, which is where the 15 to 30 percent sits.
- Show SA as its own line in your internal model. The Microsoft practice builds the usage file with you.
Frequently asked questions
What does Software Assurance cost?
Roughly 25 to 29 percent of licence cost per year, bundled into L plus SA pricing on Enterprise Agreements. It is charged annually whether or not any benefit is exercised.
How many benefits do estates actually use?
Two to four out of the dozen or more attached, across the 30 to 45 estate reviews. That is somewhere between a sixth and a third of what the premium buys.
Should we drop Software Assurance?
Not as a blanket decision. Some benefits are genuinely valuable and a few are load bearing for particular workloads. The finding is that the decision belongs at workload level rather than estate level.
How much can rationalising save?
15 to 30 percent of SA spend, without losing a benefit the estate was actually using. The money comes out of the unconsumed portion, which is why it does not show up as a capability reduction.
Why does this persist for years?
Because SA is quoted inside L plus SA pricing rather than as a separate line an approver signs off. A cost nobody has to approve is a cost nobody examines, so it renews for the full term unchallenged.
What is the key artefact?
A benefit by benefit usage file. It is the only thing that converts a bundled premium into a priced choice, and nothing in the quoting process prompts anyone to build it.
When should the review happen?
Before the renewal conversation, not during it. A benefit list assembled under quote pressure defaults to renewing everything, because there is no time to establish what is actually used.
Should we cancel mid term?
Generally no. Letting unused benefits expire on schedule is cleaner and is how the 15 to 30 percent was realised in the estates reviewed, without the disruption or the argument that a mid term change invites.
What is the right unit of decision?
The workload. A workload using deployment rights or version upgrade rights may well justify the premium; the one next to it on the same agreement, using none of them, is paying the same rate for nothing.
What sequence should the wider renewal follow?
Five workstreams in order: the licence position, the usage file, the demand forecast, the benchmark and alternatives files, and the ask list drafted before Microsoft drafts theirs, with executives aligned before the first meeting.
The Microsoft EA Preparation Playbook: The Work That Wins the Renewal
Five workstreams in order: the license position, the usage file, the demand forecast, the benchmark and alternatives files, and the ask list drafted before Microsoft drafts theirs, with the executives aligned before the first meeting.
The tier above E5 is generally available. What it adds, what it costs, and who it is actually for.
Structure moved more money than discount in roughly 20 of 25 renewals.
The plan mix decides more of the bill than any single line.
