The final discount sat 6 to 9 points above what the account team called achievable

The Enterprise Agreement is Microsoft's load bearing enterprise contract; MCA E is the future state it is steering buyers toward. Both commit for three years and differ everywhere else: banded levels against list minus, annual true up against monthly billing, a renewal escalator against Microsoft's list cadence. Across the renewals we ran, the vendor's opening read of what was achievable was an anchor, not a ceiling.

Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 15, 2026 · Microsoft advisory. 60 to 80 EA renewals run, 2024 to 2026.

• Price both frameworks on the same estate: your seats, your consumption, your growth, because the published bands and the list minus quotes only converge into a decision on your actual numbers.
• Treat the achievable number as the opening bid: the 6 to 9 point gap between flagged and final is the negotiation the vendor hopes will not happen.
• Size any MACC from trailing twelve month consumption, not the forward forecast, since the forecast built commitments 22 to 38 percent above what the estate actually drank.
• Run the E5 right sizing before either signature, because the 8 to 14 percent it returns compounds for the term on whichever paper you choose.
• Price the escalator against the cadence: the EA's 0 to 10 percent at renewal is a known step; MCA E's list adjustment is continuous and uncapped unless you cap it, per the MCA discipline.
• Anchor the decision to the renewal calendar, since the renewal fork is where the choice actually gets made, with the leverage of both quotes on the table.

Every Microsoft renewal contains a moment when the account team, helpfully, tells you what discount is achievable. The word is doing careful work. It sounds like a fact about Microsoft's pricing systems, a ceiling discovered rather than chosen, and buyers who accept it as one negotiate underneath it for the rest of the deal. Across the 60 to 80 renewals we ran, the median final discount landed 6 to 9 percentage points above that initial number. The achievable figure was not a ceiling; it was the anchor of a negotiation the vendor would prefer to skip.

The comparison table explains why the anchor works so well right now. The EA's banded certainty is dissolving, Levels A and B removed, Level C reduced, and the buyers falling out of the bands are landing on MCA E's list minus model, where there is no published level to point at and every discount is a private negotiation. In a banded world, a buyer could read the table and know what Level D paid. In a list minus world, the account team's achievable is often the only number in the room, which is exactly what makes it dangerous, and exactly why walking in with a benchmark restores the gravity the bands used to provide.

The forecast findings carry the same lesson in a different line item. MACC commitments sized on Microsoft's forward forecast overran actual trailing consumption by 22 to 38 percent, which converts directly into forfeited floor at term end. The forecast is not malicious; it is a sales instrument, optimistic by construction, and it meets a buyer who has not pulled their own trailing twelve months. Meanwhile the E5 envelope quietly carried 8 to 14 percent of recoverable spend, visible to anyone who compared assigned licenses against 90 days of feature use, invisible to everyone who did not.

The pattern across all three numbers is one pattern: the vendor supplies a number, the number favors the vendor, and the counter is always the same, your own data. Trailing consumption against their forecast, feature usage against their envelope, a market benchmark against their achievable. The EA versus MCA E choice matters, and the table above is the map, but whichever framework you land on, the deal quality is decided by whether the numbers in the room came from your systems or theirs. The fork decision itself lives in the renewal guide, the evergreen discipline in the MCA brief, and the practice library in the Microsoft hub.

Watch the briefing · 4:03Running the Microsoft EA Negotiation: Sequence, Counters, and the CloseThe counters that move a quote 6 to 9 points past achievable, in the order that makes them work.

Across 60 to 80 Enterprise Agreement renewals, the vendor supplied numbers ran one direction:

The patterns: the achievable anchor accepted as a ceiling wherever no benchmark existed, forecasts converted into committed floors without a trailing check, and the E5 envelope carrying 8 to 14 percent of recoverable spend into every uncorrected renewal.

The buyer side move is to bring your own numbers to their table. The wider library sits in the Microsoft practice.

What is the difference between the Microsoft EA and MCA E?

Both carry a three year commitment, but the mechanics differ everywhere else. The EA prices on negotiated levels with annual anniversary billing, an up only annual true up, and a 0 to 10 percent escalator at renewal. MCA E prices as list minus a negotiated discount, bills monthly against consumption, has no true up, and adjusts with Microsoft's list cadence.

What happened to the EA pricing levels?

Levels A and B, which covered 250 to 5,999 users, were removed at the 2024 renewal cycle, and Level C pricing was reduced. The banded ladder effectively starts at 6,000 users now, with Level D at 15,000 plus users carrying the 15 to 40 percent discounts. Estates below the surviving bands are being steered to MCA E and CSP.

How do EA and MCA E discounts compare?

EA Level D discounts run 15 to 40 percent off list for the largest estates. MCA E typically lands 5 to 20 percent, with the discount weight on multi year commitment, Azure consumption, and workload mix rather than seat count. Compare your actual outcome on both, on the same estate, before choosing.

What does the account team's achievable number mean?

It is an anchor, not a ceiling. Across the EA renewals we ran, the median final discount sat 6 to 9 percentage points above what the account team initially flagged as achievable. Treat the flagged number as the opening bid of a negotiation the vendor hopes will not happen.

How should MACC commitments be sized in either vehicle?

From trailing consumption, not the forward forecast. Azure MACC commitments sized on Microsoft's forward forecast overran trailing twelve month consumption by 22 to 38 percent in the renewals we reviewed, and the overrun becomes forfeited commitment at term end.

How does the true up differ between the vehicles?

The EA carries an annual, up only true up on the anniversary: growth is reported and billed yearly at locked rates. MCA E has no true up because consumption is billed monthly as it happens. The trade is reporting duty and annual surprise on one side against continuous billing exposure and no locked rate on the other.

What is the E5 right sizing opportunity at the transition?

Measured against actual feature consumption over the previous 90 days, E5 right sizing returned 8 to 14 percent of the M365 envelope in the renewals we ran. The vehicle comparison is the moment to run it, because whichever paper you sign, the corrected base compounds for the whole term.