Microsoft EA vs CSP vs MCA
Choosing the right Microsoft licensing contract model is a critical strategic decision for large enterprises. Microsoft offers multiple agreement options – primarily the Enterprise Agreement (EA), the Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) program, and the Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) – each with distinct structures and benefits.
Sourcing professionals, CIOs, and IT leaders must carefully evaluate which model aligns best with their organization’s size, technology roadmap, and budgetary needs.
This section compares EA vs. CSP vs. MCA, highlighting key differences and considerations. An informed choice can lead to significant cost savings and flexibility, whereas a misaligned contract can lock the business into unnecessary spending or constraints.
Read Microsoft Contract Renewal Planning & Strategy
Key Considerations: EA, CSP, or MCA?
Understanding the fundamental differences between EA, CSP, and MCA is the first step in selecting the optimal model. Below is a comparison of their core attributes:
| 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 commitment (enterprise-wide coverage) | Low commitment (no minimum seat count) | None – pay-per-use (consumption-based) |
| Minimum Size | ~500+ users/devices (targeted at large orgs) | No minimum (any size org can use CSP) | No minimum (commonly used for cloud spend) |
| Licensing Flexibility | Limited mid-term reductions (true-ups annually) | High – add/remove licenses anytime (monthly adjustments) | High – scale usage up/down freely |
| Pricing & Discounts | Volume discounts tiered by size (Microsoft-set pricing) | Partner-set pricing (may vary, includes partner margin) | Microsoft-set consumption rates (no volume tiers) |
| Software Assurance | Included (covers upgrades & support) | Not included by default (SA separate or via other program) | Not included (no SA; separate agreement needed) |
| On-Premises Software | Yes, covers on-prem licenses + cloud services | Yes, can include on-prem via partner (often via separate SKUs) | Primarily cloud services (on-prem requires separate volume licensing) |
| Support & Services | Not included (must purchase support separately) | Provided by CSP partner (value-add services may be bundled) | Not included (support via Microsoft or third-party as needed) |
| Billing & Payment | Annual payment (or spread over 3-year term) | Monthly/annual billing via partner | Monthly/annual billing from Microsoft |
| Cost Predictability | High – fixed pricing over term (budget friendly) | Medium – variable with monthly changes (some predictability if annual terms) | Low – fully usage-based, costs fluctuate |
| Ideal Use Case | Stable large enterprises needing broad, enterprise-wide coverage and Software Assurance | Organizations needing agility or smaller deployments; those valuing month-to-month flexibility | Cloud-centric orgs or projects with highly variable usage; those wanting simple pay-as-you-go terms |
Enterprise Agreement (EA):
The EA is Microsoft’s traditional volume licensing contract for big organizations (generally 500 seats or more). It’s a 3-year agreement that requires an enterprise-wide commitment to certain product suites. The EA bundles software and cloud services under one contract and includes Software Assurance benefits (e.g., upgrade rights, and training vouchers).
In exchange for committing to a standardized set of Microsoft technologies company-wide, enterprises get volume-discounted pricing and price protection for the term. However, the EA’s rigidity can be a drawback. You cannot reduce license counts mid-term – you’re locked into the initial quantity for three years (though you can add via annual “true-ups”).
This model offers budget predictability (payments are typically annual and fixed) but less flexibility if your workforce or technology needs change mid-stream. EA is generally best for large, stable enterprises that want all-in-one licensing with predictable costs and can broadly commit to Microsoft’s platform.
Cloud Solution Provider (CSP):
CSP is a program where you buy Microsoft subscriptions through a third-party provider (a Microsoft partner) on a pay-as-you-go basis. There’s no long-term contract – you can increase or decrease licenses often, monthly.
This model shines for flexibility: organizations can scale user counts up or down and pay only for what they need each month. CSP is great for situations where headcount or usage fluctuates (e.g., startups, project-based teams, or piloting new services).
Another advantage is that the CSP partner often provides support and can bundle additional services or expertise. However, pricing under CSP is set by the partner, which means you might not get the same volume discounts as an EA – especially for large numbers of licenses, CSP per-user costs could be higher.
Also, Software Assurance isn’t included in CSP subscriptions (so no automatic upgrade rights unless separately purchased). CSP is best for organizations prioritizing agility and low commitment, including smaller enterprises or any scenario where flexibility trumps rock-bottom unit pricing.
Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA): The MCA is an evergreen, direct agreement with Microsoft focused mainly on cloud consumption (Azure and other online services). Unlike an EA, it has no expiration date or fixed term – it’s a continually active framework under which you purchase cloud services continuously.
You typically pay only for what you use (akin to Azure’s pay-go model), though you can also make upfront commitments for discounts on Azure. The MCA offers maximum flexibility: no minimum purchase requirements and the ability to start or stop services as needed. It’s very convenient for cloud-first organizations that want to avoid long contracts. Costs are inherently variable, though, since usage can spike or drop month to month.
Also, like CSP, the MCA does not include Software Assurance for any on-premises software – it’s mainly about cloud services (any on-prem licenses would need separate volume agreements). Another consideration is support: under MCA, you deal directly with Microsoft for purchasing, and you won’t have a designated partner managing your account (though you could separately engage a third party for advisory).
The MCA is best for cloud-centric organizations or those with unpredictable usage patterns who want to “pay as they go” without committing to a set number of licenses. It’s also useful for trials or initial cloud adoption because it’s easy to sign and doesn’t lock you in – for example, spinning up Azure services under an MCA is straightforward and purely consumption-based.
Hybrid and Evolving Approaches: These models are not mutually exclusive. Many enterprises use a mix of agreements to optimize their situation. For instance, a company might keep an EA for core productivity software (to get the deep discounts on Office 365 for all employees) but use CSP or MCA for specific needs like a temporary project or a new cloud workload that requires flexibility.
Microsoft’s licensing landscape is evolving, and programs like MCA have emerged to simplify purchasing, especially as cloud usage grows. It’s important to regularly revisit which model fits your organization’s current state.
For example, suppose you are coming off a 3-year EA. In that case, you might evaluate whether shifting some portions of your spend to CSP or MCA could reduce costs or increase flexibility (Microsoft itself expects customers to re-evaluate needs at each renewal). On the other hand, if you’ve grown substantially, moving from ad-hoc CSP purchases into an EA might yield better discounts.
Examples
Scenario 1 – Large Global Enterprise:
A multinational bank with 10,000+ users opts for an Enterprise Agreement to cover Windows, Office 365, and several server products enterprise-wide. The EA gives them price predictability and enterprise-level support benefits.
Over the 3-year term, they lock in pricing and use Software Assurance to upgrade to new Windows versions. This stable environment benefits from the EA’s volume discount—for example, they received a significant discount off the list price due to committing all 10,000 users to Microsoft 365 E3.
However, midway through the term, their business reorganized and shed 500 employees. Under the EA, they cannot reduce their license count until renewal, so they plan to “true down” at renewal (reducing to the current 9,500 users) to avoid paying for unused seats in the future.
Scenario 2 – Mid-Sized Firm with Fluctuating Needs:
A regional marketing agency with 300 employees chooses a CSP agreement through an independent provider. This lets them add licenses during peak campaign seasons and remove them when projects end. For instance, they spin up 50 extra Microsoft 365 accounts for interns each summer, then scale down in the fall.
They appreciate the monthly billing because it aligns with project-based funding. The downside they experience is that their CSP partner’s pricing includes a small markup; when they compare, the per-license cost is slightly higher than what a much larger company would pay under an EA.
However, CSP is the right fit since it’s not large enough to meet EA’s minimums and values flexibility. It also leverages its CSP partner for advisory services—the partner helps it optimize Azure costs, a value-add bundled into the service (something an EA would not include by itself).
Scenario 3 – Cloud-First Development Team:
A software development company is building a new SaaS product and needs to utilize Azure extensively. They enter into a Microsoft Customer Agreement rather than an EA. There is no three-year commitment – they simply pay Azure consumption costs monthly. During initial development months, they spend very little; their Azure costs scale up dynamically as they ramp up testing.
The MCA model suits this unpredictable usage. They take comfort in knowing they can stop or scale down services anytime without contract penalties. However, they are mindful of costs: without a committed spend, they don’t get reserved instance discounts automatically, so they choose to optionally commit to an Azure plan for one year to get some cost savings (the MCA allowed them to add that commitment easily).
Since they have no EA, they separately purchase a handful of on-prem Windows Server licenses via a cloud solution provider for their small internal IT needs, as SA isn’t available under MCA alone.
These scenarios illustrate that the “right” contract model depends on organizational context. Large enterprises often lean toward EAs for comprehensive coverage, whereas smaller or more dynamic organizations find CSP or MCA advantageous.
Hybrid arrangements are common. For example, one Fortune 500 firm reported using an EA for its base licenses but supplementing them with CSP subscriptions for a fast-moving innovation lab, combining stability with agility.
Read the Microsoft Licensing Usage Review Template.
Recommendations
Choosing the right agreement model requires a balance of introspection and market knowledge.
Here are key recommendations for enterprise decision-makers:
- Assess Your Environment: Start with an internal review of your user count, deployment footprint, and cloud strategy. If you have thousands of users with uniform needs and long-term projects, an EA may yield the best unit pricing. If your usage is variable or you’re cloud-heavy with uncertain growth, a consumption-based approach (CSP/MCA) might save money. Don’t assume one size fits all – map the contract model to your organization’s size and stability.
- Consider Flexibility vs. Cost: Understand the trade-off between cost predictability and flexibility. EAs lock in pricing (often with substantial discounts) but require firm 3-year commitments. CSP and MCA offer month-to-month flexibility but might come at a higher per-unit cost or exposure to price changes. Decide which is a bigger priority: having the lowest price per license or having the ability to scale up/down rapidly without commitment. Enterprises increasingly find that flexibility can prevent overpaying for unused licenses—a form of cost saving in itself.
- Mix and Match if Needed: You are not limited to only one approach. Evaluate a hybrid licensing strategy – for example, keep core, high-volume products in an EA for discount advantages, but use CSP for niche or short-term needs where you want elasticity. Many large organizations maintain an EA and concurrently purchase some services via CSP or MCA. Microsoft’s programs allow coexistence, and an independent licensing advisor can help design a blended strategy.
- Plan for Change: Whichever model you choose, build in periodic checkpoints. Business needs evolve – acquisitions, divestitures, cloud adoption, and new Microsoft product offerings can all shift the equation. If you’re in an EA now, plan early for renewal and consider whether a different model would suit the next term (Microsoft expects customers to re-evaluate at renewal with no penalties for changing scope). If you’re using CSP or MCA and growing rapidly, revisit if an EA or Volume Licensing agreement would now unlock better pricing. Remain agile in your contract strategy.
- Seek Independent Advice: Avoid relying solely on Microsoft’s sales reps or a single reseller’s guidance, since they may have incentives to steer you toward one model or another. Engage an independent licensing expert (such as Redress Compliance or another software asset management consultant) to review your situation. An unbiased expert can help compare the total 3-year costs of an EA vs. CSP vs. MCA for your scenario, identify hidden costs or limitations, and ensure you know all options. This is especially valuable for enterprises at an inflection point (e.g., considering a shift to cloud subscriptions or coming off a legacy agreement).
By taking a strategic, well-informed approach to selecting your Microsoft contract model, you can achieve an optimal balance of cost savings, flexibility, and compliance peace of mind. The goal is to support your organization’s IT needs without overspending or unnecessary contractual shackles.
Read about our Microsoft Negotiation Service.
