Transactable vs. Non-Transactable Confusion in Azure Marketplace

Go back

Alexa Abbruscato

Service Category

Other

Cloud Provider

Azure

Service Name

Azure Marketplace

Inefficiency Type

Commitment Misalignment

Explanation

Azure Marketplace offers two types of listings: transactable and non-transactable. Only transactable purchases contribute toward a customer’s MACC commitment. However, many teams mistakenly assume that all Marketplace spend counts, leading to missed opportunities to burn down commitments and risking budget inefficiencies. Selecting a non-transactable listing, when a transactable equivalent exists, can result in identical services being acquired at higher effective cost due to lost discounts. This confusion is exacerbated when procurement and engineering teams do not coordinate or consult Microsoft's guidance.

Relevant Billing Model

Commitment-based spend (MACC); purchases that are not transactable do not contribute to MACC consumption.

Detection

Review whether forecasted Marketplace spend was intended to count toward MACC but is not reflected in actual commitment consumption
Check if listings procured through Azure Marketplace are labeled as “Contact Me” or redirect to external vendor websites, indicating non-transactable offers
Assess whether vendor agreements were finalized outside Azure, bypassing the Marketplace’s billing mechanism
Compare purchases with Microsoft's Procurement Playbook to verify listing eligibility
Analyze purchasing behavior across departments to ensure consistency in sourcing methods

Remediation

Prefer transactable listings in Azure Marketplace whenever MACC utilization is a priority
Validate SKU eligibility against Microsoft’s Procurement Playbook or MACC eligibility lists
Standardize sourcing templates and procurement workflows to explicitly document whether the offer contributes to MACC
Involve both finance and technical buyers early in vendor selection to avoid misalignment

Relevant Documentation

Submit Feedback