How Redress Compliance helped a 400-employee U.S. SaaS firm avoid a 17% cost escalation by optimising its Microsoft MPSA instead of moving to an Enterprise Agreement — while cutting Azure costs by 10% and securing 2-year price protection.
A U.S. software technology firm based in Seattle, with 400 employees, was managing its Microsoft licences through a Microsoft Products and Services Agreement (MPSA) rather than a traditional Enterprise Agreement.
Primary hosting platform for the company’s SaaS applications
Business and E3 licences for internal productivity (~450 users)
Transactional volume licensing — purchase as needed, no multi-year commitment
The MPSA was originally chosen for its flexibility during rapid growth. By 2025, headcount and cloud usage had grown significantly, and Microsoft was encouraging a move to an Enterprise Agreement. The firm engaged Redress Compliance to assess whether optimising the MPSA or transitioning to an EA/MCA would be the best strategy.
Microsoft was pushing the firm to “graduate” to an Enterprise Agreement. The preliminary EA proposal required commitment to licence quantities and Azure spend for three years — a projected 17% cost increase over the current MPSA model.
The EA offered deeper unit pricing but rigid 3-year commitments. As a tech company that frequently pivoted resources between projects (sometimes using open-source tools), the firm valued the MPSA’s ability to add or drop licences dynamically.
Under MPSA, purchases were ad hoc and spread across departments. About 50 unused licences still incurred cost — developers’ test environments, former employees’ assignments. No centralised view existed.
Azure usage was growing unpredictably as new SaaS customers onboarded. The EA’s promised Azure discount came with a fixed annual commitment. The firm feared overcommitting but also didn’t want to pay retail rates.
Redress conducted a thorough comparison of staying on MPSA versus moving to an Enterprise Agreement or the newer Microsoft Customer Agreement (MCA). Using 18 months of actual licence purchase history and Azure consumption data, the analysis revealed the firm’s ~450 M365 users were below the 500-user threshold where EAs typically make sense. Committing to a 3-year EA would mean paying for services they might not fully use.
For a framework on choosing between MPSA, EA, MCA, and CSP, see Navigating Microsoft Negotiation Strategies.
Redress identified approximately 50 unused licences and retired them. They centralised procurement through a single owner to prevent duplicate purchases, and negotiated better reseller discounts for a bulk M365 licence purchase to support planned hires.
Redress examined whether Azure benefits could be secured without an EA. They migrated some Azure subscriptions to a Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) offering a 5% discount on pay-as-you-go rates. They also recommended Azure Reserved Instances for 24/7 databases (cutting those costs 20–30%). Combined, these optimisations reduced the Azure hosting bill by approximately 10% without any long-term cloud commitment.
Redress accompanied the firm in discussions with Microsoft, effectively negotiating not to sign an EA unless it truly made sense. Microsoft responded with concessions under the MPSA/MCA route: 2-year price protection on M365 licences, an MPSA spending-account rebate for reaching certain thresholds, and assurances that any future MCA migration would carry over existing investments seamlessly.
Redress developed a forward-looking plan with triggers (headcount exceeding 600, annual spend crossing specific thresholds) that would signal when an EA genuinely becomes advantageous — ensuring the firm enters any future EA negotiation on its own timeline and terms.
By not signing an over-scoped EA, yearly Microsoft spend under the optimised MPSA decreased slightly even as the firm grew. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over three years freed for other initiatives.
Licences can be added or dropped as projects start or end. Cloud usage scales without worrying about under-fulfilling a contract. A perfect fit for agile development and DevOps culture.
CSP partner discounts + Reserved Instances cut Azure hosting costs by ~10%, all without a long-term commitment. SaaS product margins improved correspondingly.
Clear decision triggers for when an EA would genuinely make sense. Microsoft’s sales tactics won’t easily sway them — they’ll make that decision based on data, not pressure.
“We’re a tech company that lives and breathes agility — the last thing we wanted was to get stuck in a giant contract we didn’t need. Redress Compliance showed us that bigger isn’t always better when it comes to Microsoft agreements. We avoided a 17% cost increase and instead are saving money by only buying what we need, when we need it. Redress even secured extra discounts and price locks for us, all while we kept our freedom to scale on our terms.”
— CEO, U.S. Technology Firm
Generally, an EA becomes cost-effective once you exceed ~500 users with stable or growing Microsoft requirements. Below that threshold, or for organisations with variable needs, the MPSA or MCA often provides better value due to flexibility. The key is comparing total cost of ownership over three years — including licences you may not fully use under an EA’s minimum commitment. In this case, 450 users with variable needs made the MPSA the clear winner.
Yes. Azure Reserved Instances (1- or 3-year commitments on specific resources) can save 20–30% on compute costs under any agreement type. Cloud Solution Provider (CSP) partners often offer 5–10% discounts on pay-as-you-go rates. Azure Savings Plans provide commitment-based discounts with flexibility across regions and instance types. In this case, Redress combined CSP pricing and Reserved Instances to achieve a 10% overall Azure reduction without any EA.
Price protection locks in current pricing for a specified period, shielding you from Microsoft’s periodic list-price increases. It’s a standard EA feature, but can sometimes be negotiated under MPSA or MCA arrangements as well. In this case, Redress secured a 2-year price lock on M365 licences outside of an EA — a significant concession that protected the firm from upcoming price increases.
A comprehensive licence audit compares assigned licences against actual usage data (sign-in activity, feature utilisation, last-active dates). Common waste sources include: former employees with active assignments, test/dev environments with production licences, duplicate assignments, and over-provisioned SKUs (e.g., E5 where E3 suffices). In this case, ~50 licences were identified as unused and retired immediately.
The MCA is Microsoft’s newer agreement framework, primarily designed for cloud purchases. It’s a pay-as-you-go model with simplified terms. Unlike MPSA, MCA is increasingly the default for Azure and Microsoft 365 cloud subscriptions. Redress ensured that if the firm transitioned to MCA for Azure, all existing investments (Reserved Instances, licences) would carry over seamlessly. The two models can coexist during a transition period.
We’ll help you analyse your options — MPSA, CSP, MCA, or EA — and ensure you get the best pricing without unnecessary commitments. Make a confident, informed decision with an independent expert on your side.
This case study is part of our Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Guide pillar. Explore related case studies and guides: