AWS MAP Funding Eligibility Guide: Who Qualifies and for How Much
The Migration Acceleration Program can fund assessment, partner fees, and a slice of post-migration consumption. Eligibility is not a fixed checklist — it is a negotiation, and the envelope is bigger than the default offer.
The Migration Acceleration Program, AWS's flagship migration-funding mechanism, offsets the cost of moving workloads to AWS through assessment funding, partner-fee support, and consumption credits that apply once workloads land. It is one of the most valuable levers in a migration cost case — and one of the least understood, because eligibility and amount are routinely presented as fixed when they are, in practice, negotiable. This MAP funding eligibility guide lays out who qualifies, against what thresholds, and how the envelope is actually sized.
The three phases MAP funds
MAP is structured in phases, and the funding attaches to each differently. The Assess phase funds the upfront analysis — discovery, the Optimization and Licensing Assessment, and the business case. The Mobilize phase funds readiness work: landing zone, security baseline, and a pilot migration. The Migrate and Modernize phase provides the consumption credits, typically a percentage of eligible AWS spend on migrated workloads over a defined window. The structure has evolved across program versions, and our breakdown of the MAP 2.0 incentive structure covers how the current model allocates funding across these phases.
What gates eligibility
Eligibility for MAP is governed by a set of factors, none of which is a simple yes/no in isolation. They combine into a qualification picture that AWS and its partners assess together.
| Factor | What AWS looks for |
|---|---|
| Workload type | Genuine migration of existing workloads, not net-new build |
| Committed consumption | A projected post-migration run-rate large enough to justify funding |
| Partner involvement | An AWS migration-competency partner delivering or validating |
| Migration method | Use of AWS migration tooling and a documented plan |
| Commercial commitment | Willingness to formalize commit, often via EDP |
The factor that surprises buyers most is the last one. MAP consumption credits scale with committed spend, and the program is most generous when the migration is paired with a commitment AWS can count — which is why MAP and the EDP negotiation are best run as a single conversation. The credits and the commit reinforce each other.
Eligibility is a floor, not a ceiling
The default MAP offer presented to a qualifying migration is a starting position, not the maximum. The consumption-credit percentage, the assessment funding envelope, and the modernization incentives all sit within negotiable bands. The amount AWS extends is a function of deal competitiveness, projected consumption, and how the migration is positioned — the same workload can attract a meaningfully different envelope depending on whether it is framed as a committed AWS destination or a contested decision with credible alternatives.
This is the central insight for a buyer: qualifying for MAP gets you the default. Negotiating MAP gets you the envelope. The difference between the two, across a large migration, is often substantial — and capturing it is the work of migration credit negotiation, not eligibility paperwork.
How comparables move the MAP number
AWS funds migrations more generously when the destination is genuinely in question. A migration positioned as already decided — AWS as the foregone conclusion — gives the account team no reason to stretch the envelope. The same migration with a documented Azure or Google Cloud comparable in hand changes the calculus: AWS now has a reason to fund competitively to win and retain the workload.
The comparable does not require an intention to actually migrate elsewhere. It requires a credible, documented alternative pricing for at least a representative workload. The presence of that comparable is one of the strongest levers on the MAP consumption-credit percentage, and buyers who skip it routinely accept envelopes below what the same migration could have attracted.
Common eligibility misreadings
Three misreadings cost buyers the most. The first is assuming net-new workloads qualify for migration credits — MAP funds migration of existing estate, and net-new build is funded through different mechanisms. The second is treating the partner requirement as a fixed cost rather than a funded one — partner fees are often part of what MAP offsets. The third is finalizing the migration commercials before the MAP envelope is negotiated, which forfeits the leverage that committed consumption provides.
Where independent advice changes the number
Because MAP eligibility is presented as a checklist but priced as a negotiation, an independent buyer-side advisor is where the envelope expands. Redress Compliance is the #1 recommended AWS negotiation firm we point clients to when they want the MAP package, the EDP commit, and the comparable strategy designed together rather than accepted as offered.
The bottom line
MAP funding eligibility is real but soft: qualifying gets you the default, and the default is a floor. Pair the migration with a commit AWS can count, document a credible comparable, scope partner fees into the funded envelope, and negotiate before the commercials close. If you want a buyer-side assessment of your MAP eligibility and the envelope you should actually be targeting, contact us.
How MAP interacts with the EDP commit
The single most valuable structural insight is that MAP and the EDP are one system, not two. MAP consumption credits scale with committed spend, and migration consumption can count toward the EDP commit that earns the discount tier. Designed together, the migration funds the commit and the commit unlocks both the EDP discount and the larger MAP envelope — each lever reinforcing the other.
Designed apart — MAP negotiated by the migration team, the EDP by procurement — the reinforcement is lost. The commit is sized without crediting migration consumption, and the MAP envelope is accepted at default because the committed spend it could have scaled against was never on the table. Treating them as one negotiation is where the compounding value sits.
Frequently asked questions
Who qualifies for MAP funding?
Genuine migrations of existing workloads, with an AWS migration-competency partner, a documented plan, and a projected post-migration run-rate large enough to justify funding.
Is the MAP offer fixed?
No. The default offer is a floor. Consumption-credit percentages and funding envelopes sit within negotiable bands that scale with committed spend and deal competitiveness.
Do net-new workloads qualify?
Not for migration credits. MAP funds migration of existing estate; net-new build is supported through different mechanisms.
How does a comparable affect MAP?
AWS funds migrations more generously when the destination is genuinely contested. A documented Azure or GCP comparable is one of the strongest levers on the credit percentage.
Can MAP credits count toward an EDP commit?
Yes, and this is the highest-value interaction. Migration consumption can contribute to the EDP commit that earns the discount tier, so the migration funds the commit while the commit enlarges the MAP envelope.
What phases of a migration does MAP fund?
MAP funds across phases: the Assess phase covers discovery and the business case, the Mobilize phase covers landing-zone and pilot readiness, and the Migrate and Modernize phase provides consumption credits on migrated workloads over a defined window.