More Case Studies
A high-growth enterprise SaaS company generating $1.8B in annual revenue was negotiating its first major AWS Enterprise Discount Program agreement. The company had grown its AWS spend from $4M to $28M annually over three years and was approaching the threshold at which AWS account teams transition from self-service to managed enterprise relationships with formal EDP negotiations.
AWS opened the conversation with a proposal for a $43M, three-year EDP commitment at a 17% discount across eligible services. The company's VP of Engineering and CFO were both involved given the size of the commitment — and both had different perspectives on risk. The VP of Engineering was optimistic about growth projections; the CFO was concerned about over-committing to a fixed-spend floor in a market with active multi-cloud alternatives.
The company had no internal benchmark for what comparable SaaS organizations at similar scale and growth trajectory had committed to in their AWS EDPs — or what discount rates were achievable. They engaged VendorBenchmark to benchmark the proposal before proceeding.
AWS EDP negotiations involve two distinct risks that exist simultaneously: paying too high a price (insufficient discount) and committing to too large a volume (over-commitment penalty risk). Most enterprises focus on the discount rate alone and miss the structural risk embedded in the commitment size. This company faced both.
The over-commitment risk was particularly acute in this case. The company's growth had been partially driven by one major customer segment that was showing signs of contraction. If revenue growth slowed from its 40% trajectory to 15–20%, their projected AWS spend in year three would be well below the $43M commitment, triggering a financial penalty equivalent to 100% of the shortfall.
VendorBenchmark delivered two parallel analyses: an EDP discount benchmarking report and a commitment sizing analysis. The discount report compared the proposed 17% against anonymized EDP data from comparable SaaS companies — defined as enterprise software companies with $1–3B revenue and $20–40M annual AWS spend. The commitment sizing analysis modeled the financial exposure of various commitment scenarios against the company's actual consumption patterns and growth projections.
"We were about to commit $43M based on our most optimistic growth scenario. The benchmark showed us that comparable companies our size were signing at $32–36M with better discounts. We restructured the entire proposal around that data. AWS was surprised we knew what we knew — that's when we understood the value of the benchmark."— CFO, Enterprise SaaS Company
Based on the benchmark findings, the company counter-proposed a fundamentally restructured EDP. The new proposal addressed every gap identified in the benchmark report: the commitment size was reduced to $34M (80% of mid-range growth projection), the discount was anchored at 24% (matching the peer median), SageMaker workloads were removed to a separate AI/ML commitment track, and Enterprise Support was excluded from the commitment floor calculation.
AWS initially pushed back on the discount rate, citing the smaller commitment size as justification for a lower discount. The company responded with specific peer data points from the benchmark: that organizations with smaller commitments in comparable industry segments were achieving equivalent or higher discounts when commitment terms and structure were adjusted. This negotiating position — supported by specific, anonymized benchmark evidence — fundamentally changed AWS's approach to the conversation.
The signed EDP totaled $34M over three years at a 24% discount rate — versus the initial proposal of $43M at 17%. The $9M reduction in commitment value eliminates the financial exposure that would have materialized had the company's growth moderated. At the higher discount rate, the company also captures an additional $2.4M in discount value over the term relative to the initial proposal even at the lower commitment level.
Twelve months after the EDP was signed, the company's growth did moderate — AWS consumption in year one ran at approximately 85% of the reduced commitment, well within the ramp schedule the benchmark identified as standard. Under the original $43M commitment, year one under-consumption would have triggered a significant penalty. Under the restructured agreement, the company remained within tolerance.
"In hindsight, the $9M commitment reduction was the most important number. We saved $2.4M on the discount improvement too, but avoiding that over-commitment exposure when growth slowed — that's what the benchmark actually paid for."— VP Engineering & Infrastructure, Enterprise SaaS Company
AWS EDP negotiations have two separate value levers: the discount rate and the commitment structure. Most enterprises focus exclusively on the discount and accept AWS's proposed commitment size without challenge. This case demonstrates that the commitment sizing decision carries as much or more financial risk than the discount rate — particularly for growth-stage companies with variable consumption trajectories. Benchmark data is essential for both: it establishes the achievable discount floor and provides peer evidence for commitment sizing norms at comparable growth profiles.
Organizations negotiating a first EDP or renewing an existing EDP should benchmark both dimensions simultaneously before responding to AWS's initial proposal.
Negotiating an AWS EDP or cloud commitment? Submit your proposal for a 48-hour benchmark of discount rate and commitment structure under NDA.
Start with 3 free benchmark reports. No credit card required. Results in 48 hours under mutual NDA.
