Microsoft offers multiple licensing frameworks — each tailored to different enterprise needs. This guide explains the Enterprise Agreement (EA), Cloud Solution Provider (CSP), and Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA), comparing their flexibility, pricing, commitment levels, Software Assurance, support, and cost management to help you choose the right model.
A three-year volume licensing contract for large organisations (typically 500+ users/devices). It mandates organisation-wide deployment of covered products and includes Software Assurance (SA). For a deep-dive on negotiating your EA, see Microsoft EA Negotiation Guide.
Pricing tiers deliver deeper discounts at higher licence counts. Large enterprises can achieve significant per-seat savings that CSP and MCA models can't match.
SA includes version upgrades, training vouchers, 24/7 support, planning services, and deployment assistance throughout the term. These benefits alone can represent substantial value.
Fixed pricing for the three-year term with an annual true-up to add new users or devices. No surprises from consumption spikes — budget with confidence.
Combines on-premises licences and cloud services (Azure, Microsoft 365, Dynamics 365) under one contract, simplifying procurement and administration.
Must licence all eligible users/devices (the "platform count"), even if not all actively use the products. This can lead to paying for shelfware.
Cannot reduce core licence counts mid-term (except on EAS subscriptions). Must wait for renewal to renegotiate most terms. A three-year lock-in can trap outdated needs.
A subscription-based model sold through Microsoft partners. Licences and cloud services (Azure, Microsoft 365, etc.) are purchased as needed on a monthly or annual basis, with no fixed term.
Easily add or remove users and services, scaling month-to-month with business demands. No enterprise-wide mandate or minimum seat count.
The CSP partner handles billing and provisioning and can bundle additional managed services, training, or migration assistance. Single point of contact for support.
Ideal for quick rollouts, pilot projects, or smaller departments that require agility. No lengthy procurement or contract negotiation required.
The CSP partner sets costs, so list prices can include partner margin. Discounts (if any) vary by partner. Smaller volume means less volume discount — monthly model can cost more per user than EA pricing.
SA must be purchased separately or covered under a different programme (like MPSA for on-premises). You lose upgrade rights, training vouchers, and planning services.
An evergreen, consumption-based agreement directly with Microsoft. It governs cloud purchases (mainly Azure and online services) on a pay-as-you-go or commitment basis, without a fixed term.
Pay only for services consumed. Adjust usage at any time with no contractual penalty. Monthly or annual invoicing based on actual usage aligns with consumption budgeting.
Deal with Microsoft on enterprise terms, often with global currency and tax handling for multinational use. No intermediary partner required.
No licensing tiers, minimum counts, or complex true-up processes. Ideal for straightforward cloud spend management. For more on navigating the transition, see From EA to CSP to MCA: What Every CIO Must Know.
Without fixed pricing, costs can spike unexpectedly. Requires diligent usage tracking and governance to avoid bill shock — especially for Azure consumption.
Like CSP, SA is not included. Separate Volume Licensing agreements needed for on-prem licences. Lacks some EA features (no annual true-up for on-prem, limited bundling).
Evaluating which Microsoft agreement structure fits your organisation? Get independent guidance.
Microsoft EA Optimisation →| Feature | Enterprise Agreement (EA) | Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) | Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agreement Term | 3-year fixed term | No fixed term (evergreen) | No fixed term (evergreen) |
| Commitment Level | High (organisation-wide licensing) | Low (no minimum commitment) | None (pay-per-use model) |
| Licensing Flexibility | Moderate (annual true-ups, limited reductions) | High (add/remove subscriptions anytime) | High (scale usage without constraints) |
| Software Assurance | Included | Not included (available separately) | Not included |
| Pricing Structure | Set by Microsoft (volume tiers based on total seats) | Set by partner (flexible, varies) | Set by Microsoft (no volume tiers) |
| Discounts | Volume-based (deeper at higher tiers) | Variable (depends on partner pricing) | No negotiated discounts (except large Azure commits) |
| Support & Services | Must purchase separately (or via partner) | Included via CSP partner | Not included (depends on partner or Microsoft SLAs) |
| Cost Predictability | High (fixed for term, budgeted) | Medium (monthly billing with partner smoothing) | Low (fully usage-based) |
| Typical Use Case | Large enterprises needing stability and broad coverage | Flexible or project-based needs | Cloud-first, usage-driven scenarios |
Choose an EA if you're a large organisation with stable needs requiring enterprise-wide coverage and Software Assurance. Opt for CSP if you want subscription agility and a partner to manage billing. Use MCA if you're strictly cloud-based or need pure pay-as-you-go flexibility.
Consider how each model affects budgeting, contract length, and admin overhead. An EA may lock in lower prices but less flexibility. CSP/MCA provides more flexibility at the expense of predictability. Model total cost of ownership across 3 years for each scenario.
It's often advantageous to mix models. For example, use EA for core on-premises software and add CSP/MCA subscriptions for elastic cloud workloads. Align each part of your licence portfolio with the model that makes financial and operational sense. For Azure commitment strategies, see Negotiating Azure Commitments in Your EA.
The right choice impacts cost, management complexity, and vendor relationships. Engage both procurement and IT stakeholders. Tailor your licensing strategy to your organisation's size, financial model, and technical roadmap.
| Scenario | Recommended Model | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Large enterprise, 500+ users, stable headcount | EA | Volume discounts, SA included, predictable budgeting |
| Mid-size company, fluctuating users | CSP | Monthly flexibility, partner support, no minimum seats |
| Cloud-first / Azure-heavy, variable consumption | MCA | Pay-as-you-go, no minimum commitment, direct Microsoft terms |
| Large enterprise + elastic Azure workloads | EA + MCA hybrid | EA for on-prem stability; MCA for cloud elasticity |
| Small department piloting Microsoft 365 | CSP | Fast deployment, no procurement overhead, cancel anytime |
| Global company needing currency/tax consistency | MCA or EA | MCA offers multi-currency; EA offers global consistency |
Approaching your EA renewal? Our Microsoft specialists have saved enterprises millions on EA, CSP, and hybrid deals.
Microsoft Contract Negotiation →Whether you're renewing an EA, evaluating CSP, transitioning to MCA, or building a hybrid approach, Redress Compliance delivers vendor-independent advisory that saves Fortune 500 enterprises millions on Microsoft deals.
Also managing Oracle, SAP, IBM, or Salesforce contracts? We cover all major enterprise vendors.
All Advisory Services →