The comparison usually happens with a reseller in the room, which is why it usually reaches whichever conclusion that reseller sells. Here it is without one.
Cloud Solution Provider is the partner-mediated route. You buy Microsoft 365 and Azure through a partner, on a monthly or annual commitment, with the partner invoicing you and providing support. Introduced in 2015, it is now how most mid-sized organisations buy.
Enterprise Agreement is the direct volume route. A three-year contract with Microsoft, historically requiring 500 seats, with pricing negotiated up front and an annual true-up. It suits large, stable organisations that know what they will need for three years.
For a company of 100 to 500 people, the question is usually settled by seat count before it is settled by preference. But the four differences below decide it in the cases where both are genuinely available.
Mixed commitment terms. Terms are set per subscription, not per tenant. You can hold fifty seats on an annual commitment because you know you will never be below fifty, and twenty more on monthly because they are seasonal. When the season ends you drop the monthly seats at the next anniversary. An EA commits the whole estate for three years.
Reducing seats. On a CSP annual term you can add seats at any time and reduce at renewal; on a monthly term you can reduce every month. An EA true-up mechanism is designed to count growth, not contraction.
Local invoicing across countries. A group with entities in Germany, the UK, the Gulf and Canada can have each entity invoiced locally, in the currency Microsoft sets for that country, under one relationship — if the partner holds authorisations for those regions. Most do not, which is a separate problem.
A partner who does the engineering. Under an EA you buy from Microsoft and hire implementation separately. Under CSP the party holding the licensing can be the party doing the work, which removes the handover where most problems live.
Genuine scale with genuine stability. Several thousand seats, headcount that moves slowly, and a three-year plan you believe. Negotiated EA pricing at that volume can beat CSP, and the administrative overhead is spread across thousands of seats.
Products and rights that are not in CSP. Not every Microsoft product and every licensing right is available through CSP. If your estate depends on one that is not, the decision is made for you.
Contractual leverage. An EA is a negotiation. If you are large enough for Microsoft to negotiate, you may get terms that no CSP partner can match.
“CSP is more expensive.” Sometimes, at scale. Often not, once you account for the seats an EA makes you carry for three years. Compare the total you will actually pay over the term, not the per-seat rate on a good day.
“An EA gives better support.” An EA gives you a Microsoft contract. Support is what you buy separately or what your partner provides, and that is a question about the partner rather than the agreement.
“Switching is disruptive.” Moving from an EA to CSP at renewal, or changing CSP partner, does not migrate anything. Nothing goes offline and users notice nothing. You accept a change of partner of record, and subscriptions transfer at their renewal points.
Not price. Not seat count. This: how confident are you in your headcount three years from now?
If the answer is “very”, and you are large, an EA converts that confidence into a discount. If the answer involves an acquisition you have not closed, a division you might sell, or a seasonal workforce, then the flexibility of CSP is worth more than the discount you are giving up — and the arithmetic usually says so once you model the seats you would be carrying.
Most companies of 100 to 500 people are in the second group, whether or not they describe themselves that way.
We sell through CSP, so read the above with the appropriate scepticism — and then check it. Microsoft publishes the programme terms, our list prices are on this site, and any EA reseller will happily give you the other side.
Related questions
CSP is partner-mediated, bought monthly or annually with commitment terms set per subscription, and invoiced by the partner. An Enterprise Agreement is a direct three-year volume contract with Microsoft, historically requiring 500 seats, with pricing negotiated up front and an annual true-up.
Yes. Terms are set per subscription, not per tenant, so a stable baseline of seats can sit on an annual commitment while seasonal or uncertain headcount sits on monthly and can be reduced at each monthly anniversary.
At genuine scale with stable headcount, where negotiated pricing beats CSP and the administrative overhead spreads across many seats; where a required product or licensing right is not available through CSP; and where the organisation is large enough for Microsoft to negotiate terms directly.
No. Nothing is migrated and nothing goes offline. The customer accepts a change of partner of record and subscriptions transfer at their renewal points. Users notice nothing.
How confident the organisation is in its headcount three years out. High confidence plus scale favours an EA; an unclosed acquisition, a possible divestiture or a seasonal workforce makes CSP flexibility worth more than the discount forgone.
One email a month, at most
Postmortems, timelines, licensing changes that cost people money. No newsletter cadence, no digest of other people’s news. If a month has nothing worth your time, you hear nothing.
Please enter a work email address.
Done. Unsubscribe by replying to any email; we will not argue.
Scoping costs nothing
We will answer them about our own work, in writing, with the numbers. If the answers do not convince you, they should at least make the next partner’s answers easier to judge.