Cloud co-sell programs compared: Microsoft vs. AWS vs. Google

A listing lets a customer buy; co-sell is what makes a platform's seller want the customer to buy your product specifically. Across all three, sellers would logically want to support your deal when it counts toward their own quota, but the eligibility, incentives, and field reality are different across the clouds.

 

 

Microsoft gates on demonstrated commercial traction. The Azure IP co-sell eligible status that unlocks MACC eligibility requires, at the organization level, at least USD $100,000 of Azure consumed revenue or Marketplace billed sales over a trailing 12-month period (Azure credits do not count), plus a transactable offer and Azure technical validation. It is a revenue-and-fit bar.

 

AWS gates on demonstrated co-sell behavior. ISV Accelerate requires a generally available product in AWS Marketplace, Validated or Differentiated software-path stage, and, the hard part, at least 5 launched and 15 qualified ACE opportunities in the trailing 12 months. In other words, you must already be sharing pipeline through ACE before you can apply. 

 

Google's current motion is invitation-oriented:  ISV Solution Connect is for Build-authorized partners with at least one paid Marketplace listing and a documented transaction record, typically 2+ closed Marketplace deals with $10K+ first-year contract value. The Google Cloud Partner Network restructure in early 2026 that replaced Partner Advantage shifted tier movement, with a 6-month transition window for existing partners.

 

 

On AWS, sellers receive incentive credit when member ISV deals transact through Marketplace private offers: a direct, documented tie between your deal and the rep's compensation. On Microsoft, marketplace transactions support account teams' own goals, and the MACC decrement gives the customer's cloud and finance teams an active reason to want the purchase to happen. On Google, third-party reporting describes field sales reps earning quota credit on Marketplace third-party deals plus SPIFFs on close.

The through-line is this: a platform seller has thousands of products they could mention and a reason to advance the ones that count toward quota and the right co-sell status is how you become one of those.

 

Eligibility and incentive design are public; field behavior is learned. In practice, Microsoft's field organization is the most accustomed to routing enterprise software deals through co-sell and marketplace, which is why companies selling into Microsoft-committed accounts tend to see the fastest listing-to-transaction motion there. AWS's field is deeply developer- and workload-oriented and rewards ISVs who bring opportunities in through ACE, not only those who receive them. Google's field motion is genuinely improving but younger, and the invitation-driven structure means relationships matter more than a published checklist.

 

One Partner1 client co-sells with more than 500 Microsoft accounts alongside global systems integrators: a scale reached by treating co-sell as a disciplined pipeline practice, not a one-time application.

 

The disciplines are portable even though the programs are not. Every co-sell motion rewards the same things: a transactable offer, deals structured to land on the platform's paper (private offers), shared pipeline kept current, and a reason for the customer to consume committed spend. Companies operating in two or three ecosystems generally find that the muscle built for one (pipeline hygiene, offer operations, deal structuring) carries to the next. Start where your buyers are, prove the motion, then replicate it.

 

They gate on different things. Microsoft's $100,000 trailing-revenue bar suits companies with existing Azure traction; AWS's 15-qualified-ACE-opportunity bar suits companies already sharing pipeline; Google's invitation model suits companies with a Build authorization and a few closed marketplace deals. "Easiest" depends on which you already resemble. All of the cloud marketplaces require that your SaaS is hosted primarily or entirely on their infrastructure to tap into customer cloud budgets. 

 

 

None charges a standalone program fee although certain partner programs like AWS require an annual fee ($2,500/year which is a pre-requisite for ISV Accelerate). The real cost is the qualification work (traction, pipeline discipline, and offer operations) and maintaining status against trailing-window requirements.

 

No. Co-sell aligns incentives so sellers advance deals that fit and count toward quota; it does not outsource your sales motion. AWS is explicit that ISVs must bring opportunities in, not just receive them and the same works across any co-sell motion.

 

Each program links to its cloud's commitment vehicle: Microsoft to MACC (100% pretax decrement for Azure benefit-eligible offers), AWS to PPA/EDP, Google to its commitments. That link is what makes a co-sold marketplace deal clear procurement quickly. (See: What is MACC? and What is AWS ISV Accelerate?)

Where your buyers already hold committed spend and your product runs. (See: Which cloud marketplace should you list on first?)