Microsoft's playbook pushes uniform E5 for everyone. Usage data tells a different story: distinct user profiles, unused functionality, and third party tools covering the same ground. We size the estate from the evidence.
This engagement is bought by IT asset managers and CIOs whose Microsoft 365 bill has crept toward uniform E5 coverage, justified at some point by security bundling and simplicity, and never revisited against what users actually consume. The renewal is approaching, the July 2026 price increases have landed, and finance wants the seat mix defended with data.
It also serves organizations that suspect double payment: an E5 security stack alongside third party tools doing the same job, add ons nobody remembers buying, and license counts that never shrank when headcount did. The typical estate we profile carries 15 to 30 percent addressable waste.
Microsoft 365 overspend concentrates in five places, all measurable from your own admin center data:
Each finding is quantified from usage evidence, so the savings case survives both internal challenge and Microsoft's renewal counterattack.
The engagement follows the four workstreams of our M365 right sizing statement of work. Assigned licenses are matched against service level usage, users are segmented into profiles mapped to the correct level, duplicate coverage and hygiene findings are quantified, and everything lands in a movement plan timed to your enrollment dates.
| Deliverable | What it contains |
|---|---|
| License and usage baseline report | The assigned versus used position per service, cost mapping, and the contractual flexibility available for reductions. |
| Profile segmentation report | The recommended E5, E3, F3, and add on mix with per segment rationale and quantified savings from segment moves. |
| Duplicate coverage and hygiene report | A prioritized findings register with value per finding and the recommended consolidation direction per overlap. |
| Savings case and movement plan | The total quantified opportunity, sequenced actions against contract dates, and renewal negotiation positions. |
| Renewal preparation support | Responses to Microsoft's standard E5 consolidation arguments, prepared before the renewal conversation needs them. |
Microsoft's E5 consolidation argument is well rehearsed: security is included, simplicity saves money, and everyone is moving up. It survives only where nobody has profiled the estate. A per user view of what is actually consumed is the one argument the account team cannot bundle away.
The practice behind this service has delivered more than 200 Microsoft engagements across Enterprise Agreements, Azure, Copilot, and support, so the right sizing lands as part of a coherent renewal strategy rather than a spreadsheet Microsoft picks apart seat by seat.
We resell nothing: no Microsoft agreements, no third party tools competing with E5 components, no security stack of our own to defend. When the right answer is keeping E5 for a population, that is the recommendation, with the evidence attached.
One fixed, all inclusive fee covers all four workstreams, up to four advisory calls, and email support through the term, or a contingency structure where the fee comes only from savings delivered. First deliverable inside 10 business days of complete data.
Microsoft renewal outcomes on the record, built on right sized estates.
A Fortune 500 company cut its Microsoft EA renewal 20 percent with a right sized seat mix behind the negotiation.
✓ Published case studyA UK financial services firm secured 35 percent savings and contract flexibility at its EA renewal.
✓ Published case studyA leading German automotive manufacturer reset its EA economics with usage evidence at the table.
✓ Published case studyA Canadian manufacturer landed its Microsoft renewal on a defended license profile.
15 to 30 percent of spend is the typical addressable range: E5 seats justified by E3 usage, duplicate coverage against third party tools, inactive and departed accounts, service accounts on full suites, and forgotten add ons.
Some populations genuinely do, and the analysis says which. Most estates split into distinct profiles, and a mixed E5, E3, F3 model priced from measured usage almost always beats uniform coverage. Where E5 is justified, you keep it with evidence.
Security requirements are assessed per profile before any downgrade is recommended, and the duplicate coverage analysis often finds the same capability already paid for twice, once in E5 and once in a third party tool. The consolidation direction is a decision, not a default.
Reductions land at the dates your enrollment permits, which is exactly why the movement plan is sequenced against enrollment anniversary and renewal. Missing the window is how estates stay oversized for another three years.
License assignment and service level usage data from the Microsoft 365 admin center and available reporting, the enrollment and pricing documents, and an inventory of add ons and third party tools in the overlap categories.
Yes, with the standard E5 consolidation arguments. The engagement includes the negotiation positions and responses to defend the right sized profile, and the usage evidence makes them hard to argue with.
Directly: Copilot pricing stacks on top of the underlying suite, so an oversized M365 estate inflates the AI conversation too. Our separate Copilot optimization service handles seat level AI right sizing; this engagement fixes the foundation.
Fixed price, all inclusive, covering all four workstreams, up to four advisory calls, and email support, or contingency from delivered savings. The baseline report typically lands within 10 business days of complete data.
A per user usage baseline, the correct license mix, duplicates removed, and the savings case timed to your renewal.
One letter a month. Negotiation moves, audit signals, and price book shifts.