~/writing/map-funding-decoded migration economics 6 min read
Jonatan Reiners Solutions Architect :: Premier AWS Partner
~/writing / map-funding-decoded
#migration-economics 2026 — 05 — 06 6 min read

MAP funding, decoded: the formulas no one shows the SA

How the assess / mobilize / migrate credits actually compound — and the ~18% that quietly leaks out between phases.

Almost no technical SA can read a MAP funding model, and almost no one on the commercial side can read the architecture it’s funding. That gap is where money goes to die. So here’s the mechanism, in the only form that matters — the build-up — using a €6M migration as the worked example.

MAP funds three phases, and they don’t fund the same way. Assess is small, usually MDF against a defined assessment. Mobilize co-funds the foundational work — landing zone, first wave, the patterns you’ll reuse — typically at a generous rate but capped. Migrate is the big number, and it’s the one people model wrong: it’s driven by projected post-migration consumption, not by what you spend on the project.

The build-up

MAP credit on a €6M programme // illustrative rates
PhaseEligibleRateCredit
Assess80,00050%40,000
Mobilize600,00050%300,000
Migrate5,200,000 ARR15%780,000
Total credit1,120,000

So a six-million-euro programme pulls roughly €1.12M of funding — call it ~19% of the spend, but notice it’s structured so that the bulk only unlocks against realized consumption after cutover. The migrate credit isn’t a discount on the project; it’s a rebate on the run-rate you create.

Where the ~18% leaks out

In practice, the customer rarely collects all €1.12M. Across the migrations I’ve seen, roughly 18% of the eligible credit goes unclaimed — and always for the same three reasons:

  • Milestones aren’t evidenced. Funding releases against proof. No tagged resources, no consumption report, no claim.
  • The partner/customer split is never agreed in writing. By the time anyone asks, the window has moved.
  • Migrate credit is modelled against project spend, not ARR. The number comes in low, expectations get set low, and nobody chases the gap.
Funding you didn’t evidence is funding you didn’t get. The model is generous; the paperwork is unforgiving.

The fix is unglamorous: a funding register that maps each milestone to its evidence and its owner, set up in mobilize, not discovered in migrate. On a €6M programme, closing that 18% leak is ~€200k — more than the entire assess phase was worth.

Field note, not a rate card. MAP terms, eligibility and percentages change and are governed by your current AWS agreement. Treat the numbers above as the shape of the mechanism, not the contract.
$ filed under migration economics — next: Graviton cut the compute line 38% → →