Unbundling Teams rarely produced a meaningful saving unless a third party tool already carried collaboration
The no Teams suites exist because of antitrust pressure rather than because Microsoft wanted to price collaboration separately. That origin tells you most of what you need to know about how the numbers were set.
Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 17, 2026 · Microsoft advisory. 20 to 30 renewals advised after the Teams split, 2024 to 2025.
Executive summary
The unbundling rarely produced a large per seat saving. The reduction was modest across the renewals advised, which is what you would expect from a change driven by regulatory pressure rather than by commercial intent.
Real savings appeared only where a third party tool already carried collaboration. If you are still running Teams, the no Teams suite plus a standalone Teams licence is not a saving, it is a reorganisation of the same spend.
Many buyers nearly defaulted back to the bundled suite, having modelled the split expecting a discount and found the arithmetic did not support switching.
The decision is about your collaboration platform, not your licensing. The SKU change makes an existing platform decision cheaper to express. It does not make the platform decision for you.
What actually changed
Microsoft now sells Microsoft 365 and Office 365 without Teams, worldwide, alongside a standalone Teams licence. The change is real and its commercial effect is narrower than the announcement suggested.
| Option | What it contains | Who it suits |
|---|---|---|
| Bundled suite | Microsoft 365 or Office 365 including Teams | Anyone running Teams as their collaboration platform |
| No Teams suite | The same suite without Teams | Estates where a third party tool already carries collaboration |
| No Teams suite plus standalone Teams | Both licences, purchased separately | Almost nobody, on price |
The third row is where most modelling exercises end up, and it is the one that does not pay. Buyers who still run Teams and hoped the split would let them reprice it find that the no Teams suite plus a standalone Teams licence reorganises the same spend rather than reducing it. The saving is only available to estates that genuinely do not need the Teams licence, which is a platform question that was already decided before the SKU existed.
A regulatory change, priced accordingly
Microsoft unbundled Teams from Microsoft 365 and Office 365 worldwide following European antitrust pressure. That origin is the most useful fact about the change, because it tells you what the pricing was designed to do. A vendor separating a component under regulatory pressure is required to make the separation available; it is not required to make it attractive. Across the renewals advised after the split, the unbundling rarely produced a large per seat saving, and the reduction was modest where it existed at all.
The pattern that recurs is a buyer modelling the split expecting a discount and discovering that the arithmetic only works in one configuration. If the estate still runs Teams, buying the no Teams suite and adding a standalone Teams licence reorganises the same spend into two lines. Real savings appeared only where a third party tool already carried collaboration, which is to say where the Teams licence was genuinely surplus. Many buyers who ran the model nearly defaulted straight back to the bundled suite, which is the correct outcome for them and a useful signal about how the numbers were set.
That reframes what the change is actually for. The no Teams suite does not make a collaboration platform decision cheaper to reach; it makes an existing decision cheaper to express. An organisation that moved to Slack, Zoom, or Webex previously carried an unavoidable Teams licence inside its suite and now does not. That is a genuine and overdue correction for those estates, and it is worth claiming. It is not a lever for estates that are still on Teams and would like to pay less for it.
The practical discipline is therefore to answer the platform question first and the licensing question second, which is the reverse of how the split is usually approached. If a third party tool already carries collaboration, move to the no Teams suite and take the reduction. If Teams is your platform, model the split honestly, expect it not to pay, and spend the negotiation attention on the levers that do move, which are the plan mix and the seat placement. The wider plan arithmetic sits in the E3, E5, and F3 brief, and the library in the Microsoft practice.
- Usage exports analysed: inactive accounts, plan right sizing, per user reassignment
- Your renewal quote benchmarked against real closed Microsoft deals
- Every risky clause flagged with the exact quote, the page, and the replacement language
How to run the decision
- Answer the platform question first. Whether Teams is your collaboration tool is a product decision, and the SKU change does not inform it.
- Claim the reduction where a third party tool already carries collaboration, since those estates previously paid for a Teams licence they could not remove.
- Model no Teams plus standalone honestly, expecting it to reorganise spend rather than reduce it if Teams remains your platform.
- Remember why the change exists. A separation made under regulatory pressure has to be available, not attractive, and the pricing reflects that.
- Do not let the split absorb the renewal. Plan mix and seat placement move materially more money than the Teams line does.
- Check the standalone Teams price against the implied bundle value, so the comparison is against what you actually paid rather than what the suite listed at.
What the post split renewals showed
Across roughly 20 to 30 Microsoft renewals advised after the Teams split:
The unbundling rarely produced a large saving, which is consistent with a separation made under regulatory pressure rather than commercial intent.
Real savings appeared only where another tool already carried collaboration and the Teams licence was genuinely surplus.
Many buyers nearly defaulted back to the bundled suite after modelling the split. That is the correct outcome where Teams remains the platform, and it is a useful signal about how the standalone pricing was calibrated.
Microsoft now sells Microsoft 365 and Office 365 without Teams worldwide, alongside a standalone Teams licence. The change is real; its commercial effect is narrower than the announcement implied.
Watch the briefing · 3:585 Tips for Your Microsoft NegotiationWhere the renewal attention actually pays, and which lines move more than the Teams question.
Your first five moves
- Establish whether Teams is your collaboration platform before looking at any SKU, because that answer decides everything else.
- If a third party tool already carries collaboration, move to the no Teams suite and take the reduction you were previously unable to claim.
- If Teams is your platform, model the split anyway so the decision to stay bundled is evidenced rather than assumed.
- Compare standalone Teams against implied bundle value, not against list, so the arithmetic reflects what you actually pay.
- Spend the renewal attention on plan mix and placement. The Microsoft practice runs the comparison with you.
Frequently asked questions
What did Microsoft actually change?
It now sells Microsoft 365 and Office 365 without Teams, worldwide, alongside a standalone Teams licence. The change followed European antitrust pressure rather than a commercial decision to price collaboration separately.
Does unbundling save money?
Rarely by much. The reduction was modest across the renewals advised, and real savings appeared only where a third party tool already carried collaboration and the Teams licence was genuinely surplus.
Why is the saving so small?
Because a separation made under regulatory pressure has to be available, not attractive. The vendor is required to offer the option; nothing requires the pricing to make switching compelling.
What if we still run Teams?
Then the no Teams suite plus a standalone Teams licence reorganises the same spend into two lines rather than reducing it. Many buyers who modelled this nearly defaulted straight back to the bundled suite, which is the right answer for them.
Who should move to the no Teams suite?
Estates where Slack, Zoom, Webex, or another tool already carries collaboration. Those organisations previously paid for a Teams licence they could not remove, and the reduction is a genuine and overdue correction.
Does the SKU change help us decide on a platform?
No. It makes an existing platform decision cheaper to express. The question of whether Teams is your collaboration tool is a product decision, and the licensing change contributes nothing to answering it.
In what order should we approach it?
Platform question first, licensing question second, which is the reverse of how the split is usually approached. Starting from the SKU leads to modelling a configuration that mostly does not pay.
What should we compare the standalone price against?
The implied value of Teams inside the bundle you actually pay for, not the suite list price. Comparing against list overstates the saving because nobody pays list on an enterprise agreement.
Is the Teams line worth the renewal attention?
Usually not. Plan mix and seat placement move materially more money, and letting the unbundling question absorb the negotiation is a poor allocation of the limited attention a renewal gets.
Is the change permanent?
The no Teams suites are sold worldwide and the driver was regulatory, which makes the availability durable. What can change is the relative pricing, so the comparison is worth rerunning at each renewal rather than settled once.
The Microsoft EA Preparation Playbook: The Work That Wins the Renewal
Five workstreams in order: the license position, the usage file, the demand forecast, the benchmark and alternatives files, and the ask list drafted before Microsoft drafts theirs, with the executives aligned before the first meeting.
