Transitioning from EA to MCA or CSP
Microsoft has been steadily shifting mid-market and even some enterprise customers away from the traditional Enterprise Agreement (EA) model toward the Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA) and Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) programs.
In fact, Microsoft recently raised the minimum seat count for new EAs (rumored to be up to 2,400 users) – meaning many organizations with a few hundred or a couple thousand seats may soon no longer qualify for an EA at all.
Whether by necessity or choice, moving from an EA to the newer MCA or CSP model carries significant strategic and financial implications.
This article examines what to expect when transitioning out of an EA, how it can impact your costs and license management, and how to plan a smooth migration that avoids pitfalls.
Read CIO-Level Playbook: Evaluating Microsoft Renewal Proposals.
Why Move Away from an EA?
Common drivers include:
- Size and Eligibility: If your organization has shrunk below Microsoft’s EA minimum (traditionally 500 users for a Level A EA, and potentially increasing to 2,400 users as noted), you may be forced off EA at renewal. Microsoft’s strategy is to reserve EAs for its largest customers and funnel smaller clients to the MCA/CSP framework.
- Need for Flexibility: EAs lock you into a three-year agreement with a fixed initial quantity of licenses. You can increase (true-up) during the term but cannot reduce your license count until renewal. In a fast-changing business (mergers, divestitures, staffing fluctuations), that can lead to overpaying for unused licenses. CSP/MCA, by contrast, allows additions and reductions on a regular basis (even month-to-month in CSP), aligning costs more closely with actual usage.
- Cash Flow and Simplicity: EA typically involves an upfront payment each year (or full prepay) based on a forecast of needs. CSP is pay-as-you-go, which can improve cash flow and eliminate large true-up bills. The MCA contract is also much shorter and simpler (often digitally accepted) compared to EA paperwork – appealing for organizations without big procurement departments.
Cost Implications: EA vs. MCA vs. CSP
A critical consideration when leaving an EA is how your costs might change:
- Loss of EA Discounts: Enterprise Agreements often include volume discounts, especially for organizations with thousands of seats or broad product bundles. Moving to CSP or MCA direct purchasing means you might pay closer to list prices. For example, under an EA you may have had a 15% discount on Microsoft 365 licenses; under CSP, those same licenses could be at full price. You must evaluate whether the flexibility gained offsets the potential loss of discount. In many cases, organizations that were over-licensed under EA find that after moving to CSP/MCA (and only paying for what they use), their overall spend stays flat or even decreases despite higher unit prices, because they shed the “shelfware” licenses. Tip: Before your EA ends, do a thorough license cleanup so you’re not carrying unnecessary costs into the new model.
- Price Lock vs. Variable Pricing: An EA locks prices for three years, protecting you from Microsoft’s price increases during that term. In CSP/MCA, pricing can adjust with market changes. Microsoft can (and does) raise cloud subscription prices and will apply those to CSP customers at renewal or with notice. This introduces some cost volatility. To mitigate it, consider using multi-year CSP subscriptions for key products – for instance, a 36-month CSP term for Office 365 can lock today’s price (similar to an EA). Just weigh the trade-off: you gain price security but lose some flexibility to reduce licenses during that term.
- Administrative Overhead: Under an EA, you had one agreement, one bill (per year), and one true-up process. In a CSP world, you’ll receive regular (often monthly) invoices from your partner. License management becomes continuous: you add/remove via the portal as needed. Some organizations find this easier and more transparent; others find it requires more day-to-day attention. Additionally, if you choose to work with multiple CSPs (say one for software and another for Azure), that can complicate vendor management. It’s wise to consolidate with a single trusted CSP provider if possible, to streamline support and billing.
- On-Premises Licensing Needs: If you still rely on on-prem software, note that CSP and MCA can transact most of those licenses too, but in different ways. Under an EA you might have, for example, Windows Server with Software Assurance – under MCA, you’d need a separate purchase (perhaps via a volume license partner or the new “Server Subscriptions” in CSP) to maintain upgrade rights. There could be financial impacts, like losing long-term discounts on renewals of perpetual licenses. Map out each on-prem product from your EA and ensure there’s a strategy via MCA or CSP to cover it, so you don’t accidentally let something lapse and then have a costly repurchase later.
Read What CIOs Need to Know About Microsoft Copilot and AI Licensing Models.
Operational Changes in a Post-EA World
Beyond costs, transitioning off an EA affects how you manage licenses:
- Procurement Process: Without an EA, you’ll acquire licenses through the Microsoft 365 admin center or Azure portal (for MCA direct) or through your CSP’s portal. This is a more on-demand purchasing model. IT needs to coordinate closely with finance to ensure new subscriptions are approved/budgeted, since adding 100 new users in CSP generates a new charge that month (as opposed to being absorbed until an EA true-up once a year). Some companies implement internal monthly license reconciliations to keep tight control.
- License Visibility: One upside of CSP/MCA is improved real-time visibility. In the admin portal you can see exactly how many licenses are in use vs purchased at any time. Under EA, you might not have noticed over-licensing until a true-up or an audit. Use this visibility to your advantage – run reports each month, identify inactive users to remove, etc. The new model enables more agile license management if you embrace it.
- Support Structure: Under EA, you likely had a Microsoft account team and possibly Premier/Unified Support (which is purchased separately, but often tied to EA volumes). In CSP, your first line of support is usually the CSP partner. Ensure your partner has the capability to support you well. Many CSPs offer support plans included in their service – clarify SLAs and escalation paths. If you had unused support vouchers or planning days from EA, note that those programs are mostly retired or changing under MCA. Plan for how you’ll handle support issues and engagements (you might lean more on partners or third-party advisors for complex projects without Microsoft’s funded services).
- Compliance and True-Ups: One subtle point – under an EA, Microsoft’s compliance audits would check if you deployed more software than you paid for. In a pure subscription world (MCA/CSP), that risk drops dramatically, because you generally can’t consume more seats than you subscribe to, and usage of cloud services is metered. However, if you have legacy on-prem licenses that persist, keep an eye on compliance (e.g., if you had 1,000 Windows Server licenses with SA and continue to use them, don’t exceed that count unless you buy more via your new channel). Overall, moving to subscriptions simplifies compliance, which is a nice benefit.
Strategy and Planning Tips for Transition
If you decide (or are forced) to transition from an EA:
- Perform a Detailed Cost Analysis: Don’t assume moving to CSP/MCA will automatically save money, nor that it will necessarily cost more – it depends on your situation. Model out a full year’s cost under your EA (including any planned true-ups) versus under CSP for the same mix of licenses. Include intangible benefits (e.g., value of flexibility vs. value of price lock). This analysis will inform whether you push back on Microsoft to stay on EA-like pricing or embrace the new model fully. It will also help in budgeting – you don’t want surprises if, say, your unit costs go up 5% but you’re hoping to offset that by cutting unused licenses.
- Time the Transition Carefully: Align the switch with your EA expiration to avoid double-paying. Microsoft gives a 30-day grace period after an EA ends during which you can transition users to new subscriptions without service interruption. Have your CSP or MCA agreements in place ahead of time so you can begin switching users immediately after EA termination. If you’re mid-term and considering an early exit from EA, check the EA contract terms – usually you’re financially committed for the full term (early termination isn’t allowed except by buying out the remaining term), so most will just run the EA to completion.
- Choose the Right CSP Partner (if applicable): If going CSP, the partner you select matters. Treat it like a significant vendor decision – evaluate multiple partners’ offerings. Some things to consider: pricing transparency, portal usability, support quality, additional services (e.g., will they help you optimize licensing continuously?), and flexibility (are they easy to work with if you need to add a lot of users quickly or handle billing in multiple currencies?). Also negotiate the CSP agreement – while Microsoft’s license prices are standard, partners might offer incentives like a rebate on first-year spend, or free migration assistance.
- Mind the Licensing Gaps: Make a checklist of any benefits or products you had via EA and ensure none fall through the cracks. For example, did you have an enterprise-wide Visual Studio/DevOps agreement? That might need a different purchasing approach under MCA. Did EA give you training vouchers or home use program benefits for employees? (HUP is now open to all Microsoft 365 users, not just EA, so that one is fine.) Addressing these details ensures a seamless experience for end users and IT post-transition.
- Communicate the Change: Internally, let IT teams and end-users know if there will be any visible changes. In most cases, the end-user experience remains identical – their Office 365 login doesn’t suddenly change. But IT asset management, procurement, and finance teams will notice changes in process. Set new policies for requesting licenses, and educate staff that the organization is moving to a more dynamic model. Sometimes, business units accustomed to “I have a pool of licenses allocated for the year” might need to adjust to “I can request licenses on the fly, but also should release them when not needed to save money.” This is a cultural shift toward cloud economics.
- Leverage Microsoft and Partner Help: Microsoft actually wants customers to transition smoothly (after all, it’s partly their idea to move many to MCA/CSP). Often they or the CSP partner will provide guidance, tools, or workshops to help with the transition. This could include scripts to migrate users, or billing reconciliation templates, etc. Use all available resources – you’re not the first to make this move, and there is knowledge out there to tap into.
The Upside of Leaving EA
It’s not all cautionary – there are real benefits many organizations realize:
- Agility: You can scale down licenses during downturns or as you implement efficiencies, something impossible under a fixed EA commitment. This agility can save cost in a way that an EA never could (since EA was about scale-up).
- Simplified Billing and Purchase: Especially for cloud services, many find the contemporary portals easier to manage than the old EA true-up forms and quotes. Need another 50 Power BI Pro licenses? Under MCA/CSP, it might take minutes to assign them, versus paperwork and waiting under some EA processes.
- No More True-Up Surprises: True-ups could sometimes lead to unbudgeted spend if usage grew faster than expected. With pay-go, you see the spend as it happens (monthly bills). That can actually improve financial predictability over the course of the year and prevent large true-up hits (as long as someone is monitoring the run rate).
- Opportunity to Re-Evaluate Vendors: While on EA, it might have been difficult to consider alternative solutions (because you were already committed/paid for Microsoft). In a post-EA model, if a specific Microsoft product isn’t meeting needs or justifying its cost, you have a bit more freedom to switch at any time. For example, if a department wants to try a third-party SaaS instead of a Microsoft component, you could drop those Microsoft licenses next month and not renew them, whereas under an EA you might have kept paying until term end. This flexibility can foster a more innovative IT environment – you can more readily pilot competing solutions and hold Microsoft accountable to continue delivering value.
Conclusion: Transitioning from an EA to an MCA or CSP model is a significant shift, but with careful planning it can be a positive one. The main watch-outs are financial – understanding the changes in pricing dynamics – and operational – ensuring your IT team adapts to more continuous license management.
Many mid-sized organizations ultimately appreciate the flexibility of the new model, even if it means paying slightly more per license, because they can avoid paying for unused capacity. Others decide to push for EA-like terms if the analysis shows it’s cheaper.
As a CIO or SAM leader, the key is to proactively analyze the impact, negotiate any available concessions during the switch, and put in place governance for your new licensing regimen. With those steps, you can make the transition on your own terms and maintain control over both costs and compliance as Microsoft’s licensing landscape evolves.
Read more about our Microsoft Negotiation Service.
