Contents
Key takeawaysEA, CSP and MCA comparedWhy SKU prices misleadWhat our reviews showedWorked exampleWhich agreement fitsCheck your own positionSeller lines and repliesTerms to ask forRenewal timelineWhat to do nextFAQMicrosoft sells one catalog through three contracts. The EA locks you in for three years, CSP flexes at term boundaries, and the Microsoft Customer Agreement never expires. In 40 to 55 agreement reviews, those terms moved more money than the discount.
- Same catalog, three contracts. The EA is a three year volume lock, CSP trades headline discount for seat flexibility at term boundaries, and the evergreen MCA is where Microsoft is steering most buyers.
- Unused flexibility costs money. Customers pushed onto CSP without a flex plan paid 8 to 15 percent more than a renegotiated EA would have cost.
- The EA lock freezes shelfware. Two thirds of the EA customers we reviewed carried 12 to 22 percent shelfware the three year term had locked in.
- Blends need an owner. Mixed EA and CSP customers held duplicate entitlements on 5 to 10 percent of seats until someone reconciled the two order books.
- Committed Azure goes on an MCA with a MACC. Size the commitment to evidenced consumption and plan the drawdown, instead of carrying an aging EA commitment.
- Decide from your own data. Headcount volatility and the three year roadmap are the two inputs that matter, and neither appears on any quote.
How do the Microsoft EA, CSP and MCA differ?
All three sell the same Microsoft catalog. The Enterprise Agreement commits you for three years in exchange for volume pricing, CSP buys through a partner on monthly or annual terms, and the Microsoft Customer Agreement is an evergreen contract with no end date.
A Microsoft 365 E3 seat is the same license whichever contract carries it, at nearly the same list price. Since November 1, 2025, Microsoft prices EA Online Services at one level for every customer at renewal, aligned with Microsoft.com, so EA size no longer buys a lower Microsoft 365 list price.
| Dimension | Enterprise Agreement | CSP | Microsoft Customer Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Term | 3 years fixed | Monthly or annual (three years on some offers) | Evergreen, no expiry |
| Seat reductions | Locked for the term, with narrow exceptions | At the end of each subscription term | Per subscription rules |
| Adding seats | Annual true up at the price sheet rate | Any time, on a new or existing subscription | Any time, per subscription |
| Practical floor | 500 plus users | No practical floor | No practical floor |
| Azure fit | Legacy commitment | Pay as you go | MACC and drawdown |
| Who sells it | Microsoft direct or a Licensing Solution Partner (LSP) | A CSP partner | Microsoft direct or a partner |
The Enterprise Agreement: three years, priced for scale
The EA runs three years. Enterprise Products must be licensed across the whole organization, and you add users and devices through an annual true up at the agreed prices, settled at renewal.
The price certainty is real, and so is the lock. A seat committed in year one stays on the invoice until the term ends, apart from narrow anniversary reductions that the Product Terms allow on some subscription products.
CSP: partner billing with flexibility at term boundaries
CSP is the partner channel. Subscriptions run on New Commerce Experience terms, and the partner sets service and price inside Microsoft's rules.
A license subscription can be cancelled only within 7 calendar days of purchase or renewal. After that the seat count is fixed until the term ends, so CSP flexibility arrives at term boundaries. Our New Commerce Experience guide covers the term rules.
The Microsoft Customer Agreement: evergreen, direct or through a partner
The MCA is the digital contract Microsoft now prefers, and it underpins most new Azure buying. It never expires, so there is no renewal date. For larger customers Microsoft offers the Microsoft Customer Agreement for Enterprise, which we compare line by line with the EA in EA versus MCA for Enterprise.
5 Tips for Your Microsoft Negotiation
Why don't the SKU prices settle the EA, CSP or MCA choice?
Because list rates barely differ between the three, while the terms around them differ a great deal. The cost gap comes from how long you are held, when you can shrink, and what happens when the term ends, and none of that shows on a quote.
The EA lock buys price certainty and also freezes any sizing mistake for three years. CSP flexibility is worth exactly the reductions you take at term ends. The MCA's evergreen term removes the one event that used to force a negotiation.
Every Microsoft agreement trades certainty against flexibility, and what that trade costs depends on how you run the contract after you sign it.
Make the choice on purpose in 2026, or Microsoft's migration schedule will make it for you. EA eligibility keeps tightening, more customers are moved off the EA at each renewal, and the MCA leaves no later renewal date to correct course.
Microsoft EA and MCA renewal guide
The agreement decision end to end, from modeling each contract to the terms to hold at signature.
Get the white paper →What did our agreement reviews show between 2024 and 2026?
Across 40 to 55 Microsoft agreement reviews from 2024 to 2026, the agreement choice moved more money than the discount did. Where it went wrong, the choice had been made by default, by history or by the seller, and never by a model of the company's own seat behavior.
Flexibility bought and never used
Customers pushed onto CSP without a managed flex plan paid 8 to 15 percent more than a renegotiated EA would have cost. The right to reduce seats at each term boundary was real. The reductions were never taken, because no one owned the subscription calendar or checked which seats were idle before each term renewed.
A three year lock on a population that changes
Two thirds of the EA customers we reviewed carried 12 to 22 percent shelfware that the lock had frozen in place mid term. These companies bought certainty and found it applies to errors as well. Seats sized for a peak, a delayed project or a divested unit stayed on the invoice until renewal.
Blends with no one reconciling them
Most large customers end up with a mix of EA and CSP. Where two order books cover one population, part of it gets licensed twice. In our reviews that overlap ran 5 to 10 percent of seats, paid twice and used once, and invisible until someone reconciled both order books line by line.
What does the wrong agreement cost a 2,000 user company?
On a hypothetical 2,000 user company, each failure mode costs roughly $47,000 to $140,000 a year. The example prices every seat at the Microsoft 365 E3 list rate of $39 per user per month on annual commitment, the version that includes Teams, as Microsoft.com shows it today.
| Scenario | Calculation | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline annual E3 spend | 2,000 x $39 x 12 | $936,000 a year |
| CSP bought for flexibility, flexibility never used | $936,000 x the premium range we measured | $74,880 to $140,400 a year |
| EA locked, headcount falls 12 percent after year one | 240 surplus seats x $39 x 12 | $112,320 a year, $224,640 over years two and three |
| Blend with 5 percent of seats licensed twice | 100 duplicate seats x $39 x 12 | $46,800 a year |
For simplicity the CSP premium is applied to the list baseline. Your negotiated rate will change the dollar figures but not the proportions. The head to head arithmetic for Microsoft 365 alone sits in our CSP versus EA comparison.
When does each agreement make sense for your company?
Match each population to the contract whose defining feature you will use. Stable users belong on committed paper, variable users on flexible paper, and committed Azure spend on an MCA with a Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitment (MACC).
- EA. Large and stable: headcount moving less than about 5 percent a year, a broad Microsoft 365 platform base worth negotiating as one deal, and a finance team that wants a fixed three year number.
- CSP. Headcount that swings with projects, seasons, contractors or acquisitions, where you have someone who will cut seats at every term end.
- MCA with a MACC. Heavy committed Azure spend with a drawdown plan, sized to consumption you can evidence.
- A deliberate blend. Most large companies, provided one owner runs a reconciliation across both order books every quarter.
How the answer changes with company size
A 400 user company has no EA decision to make. CSP or a partner led MCA is the choice, and the work is making two or three partners compete.
A 20,000 user company can keep an EA for its stable core and gains most by putting contractors and project staff on CSP and Azure on an MCA. In between, eligibility is the open question, so ask Microsoft early whether it will renew your EA.
Why we disagree with moving everything to CSP for flexibility
A common recommendation, often from partners, is to leave the EA and put everything on CSP for flexibility. We disagree, because flexibility has no value until someone exercises it, and the customers who switched wholesale paid more than a renegotiated EA. Shift only the population that changes, with a named owner and a subscription calendar.
Why the MACC decision is separate from the seat decision
A MACC is a commitment you make to Microsoft under a direct EA or a direct MCA, and Microsoft's MACC tracking works only for direct agreements. Committed Azure spend therefore does not belong on CSP. Size the commitment from evidenced consumption, applying the commitment sizing discipline before signature.
A missed milestone or a missed total at the end date is charged as a shortfall, issued as an Azure prepayment credit. Consumption paid from that credit does not count toward the MACC. Our MACC negotiation guide covers the terms that soften a shortfall.
How do you check what your current agreements really cover?
Start from what Microsoft's own consoles show. The order history tells you what was bought, while the consoles show what is assigned and used. Twelve months of data is enough to see which populations are stable and which change.
- Microsoft 365 admin center, Billing, Licenses. Shows purchased against assigned licenses per product. Purchased counts well above assigned counts point to shelfware.
- Microsoft 365 admin center, Billing, Your products. Lists each subscription on the tenant as its own line, so an EA subscription and a partner subscription for the same product appear side by side. That is where duplicate coverage shows up.
- Usage reports and Entra ID sign in activity. Identify licensed accounts with no recent activity, the first candidates to cut at a term boundary.
- Cost Management + Billing in the Azure portal. Under Benefits on an MCA, or Credits + Commitments on an EA, the MACC view shows the remaining commitment, milestones and the invoiced spend that counted against it.
- HR headcount history. Monthly joiners, leavers and contractor counts for the last twelve months, which tell you how volatile each population is.
What will Microsoft and partners say, and how should you reply?
Expect the conversation to push you toward whichever contract suits the seller's plan. These are the lines we hear most often, with the replies that keep the decision yours.
| What you will hear | What to say back |
|---|---|
| "Your organization no longer qualifies for an EA renewal, so you need to move to the MCA." | "Please confirm that in writing, with the eligibility rule you are applying. We will treat the switch as a new negotiation, priced against CSP." |
| "CSP gives you full flexibility at the same price." | "Show us the total over three years with the reductions we plan to take, and the price you will hold at each renewal." |
| "A bigger MACC gets you better Azure incentives." | "We will commit to what our last twelve months of consumption supports, with milestones we can meet." |
| "The MCA means you never have to go through a renewal again." | "Then write in the price protection and the review dates the renewal used to give us." |
Which contract terms should you ask for on each agreement?
Each contract has a gap that matching terms can close. Ask for these before signature, when Microsoft or the partner still needs your commitment.
On the EA
- Reduction rights at anniversary. Written rights to reduce named subscription products, so a divestment or restructure does not leave paid seats idle for two years.
- True up prices held for the term. Confirmation that seats added in years two and three come in at the year one price sheet rate.
On the MCA
- A price hold with a stated duration. The evergreen term does not fix prices on its own; our price hold clause guide has the wording.
- Scheduled commercial reviews. Fixed dates, for example every 12 months, to revisit quantities and pricing. This rebuilds the checkpoint that the renewal used to provide; the MCA brief covers what else replaces it.
- MACC milestones and shortfall terms. Milestones you can meet, and agreed treatment if consumption falls short.
Some MCA for Enterprise terms are fixed; we list them in MCA for Enterprise terms you cannot negotiate. On CSP, ask the partner for aligned renewal dates across subscriptions and written notice before each renewal, so the 7 day window is never missed.
When should you start the agreement decision before your EA expires?
Start 12 months before the EA end date. That leaves time to collect the data, check eligibility and run CSP partners against a direct Microsoft offer before anyone can claim the deadline forces a choice.
| Months before expiry | What to do |
|---|---|
| 12 | Pull twelve months of license, usage, headcount and Azure data. Ask Microsoft in writing whether you remain eligible to renew the EA. |
| 6 | Segment users into stable and variable populations. Model all three contracts, including planned reductions and likely shelfware. |
| 3 | Request CSP quotes from at least two partners and a direct MCA offer. Negotiate the terms listed above. |
| 1 | Sign, then set the quarterly reconciliation and the CSP subscription calendar before the first renewal date arrives. |
Your EA renewal is the last date on which the whole structure can still be rearranged. The wider library, including true up and shelfware guides, sits in our Microsoft practice.
What to do next
- Split your users by seat behavior. Sort them into stable, variable and Azure committed groups, using twelve months of headcount and consumption data.
- Model the three agreements on those groups. Price in the shelfware each lock would freeze and the flex you would really exercise, then compare totals rather than rates.
- Check your EA eligibility runway. The rising floor and the growing number of EA retirements may turn the next renewal into a forced migration. Plan it as a choice instead.
- Name a reconciliation owner for any blend. Run the duplicate entitlement check across both order books every quarter.
- Put an MCA on a review calendar. Write the checkpoints and the price hold into the contract, since the evergreen term never hands you a renewal date.
- Open the renewal with your model. Take it into the renewal as your opening position. Our Microsoft practice builds the model with you.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a Microsoft EA, CSP and MCA?
The length of the commitment and who bills you. The EA is a three year contract, bought from Microsoft direct or through a Licensing Solution Partner, with counts trued up annually. The MCA is evergreen and signed direct or through a partner. Every CSP customer accepts the MCA for the license terms, while the partner sets the price, bills you and provides support.
When does the EA still make sense in 2026?
For large, stable companies whose headcount changes by less than about 5 percent a year and whose finance team wants a fixed three year price. Volume no longer lowers the Microsoft 365 list price, so the EA case rests on certainty and negotiated concessions. With the practical floor pushed toward 500 plus users, ask Microsoft in writing whether it will renew you.
When does CSP beat the EA?
When headcount changes and someone acts on it. CSP rarely wins the headline discount, so its value comes from seats you shed at term ends. That needs a named owner, a calendar of subscription end dates, and an idle seat report run before each one. Without those, a renegotiated EA is usually cheaper.
Where does the Microsoft Customer Agreement fit?
It is where Microsoft is steering most buyers, and it suits heavy committed Azure spend placed under a MACC with a drawdown plan. Microsoft emails billing admins 90, 60 and 30 days before a MACC end date or milestone, but by then a shortfall is hard to avoid, so track drawdown monthly from day one.
What does the wrong agreement cost?
More than a harder rate negotiation usually saves. The costs also compound differently. Unused CSP flexibility repeats at every term, EA shelfware runs until the renewal date, and duplicate seats in a blend keep billing until someone reconciles both order books. That is why we price the contract structure before discussing discounts.
Should we run a single agreement or a blend?
Most large companies end up blended, and the blend is where stranded licenses hide. Put the stable base on committed paper, variable users on the flexible one and Azure on the MCA. Then compare purchased and assigned counts per product every quarter so the same user never carries two entitlements.
How do we choose the right Microsoft agreement?
Start from two inputs the quote never shows: how much your headcount changes and what the next three years hold, such as acquisitions, divestments or a move of workloads to Azure. Build the cost of each contract over the full term for each user group, and let those totals decide. Rate comparisons alone will point you to the wrong answer.