Compare plans and options using consistent dimensions

The Microsoft Azure Cloud Computing Payment Plan Comparison Dataset uses a side-by-side comparison pattern. Keep each feature fixed while comparing the values for Classic, TGS ELM, and Recommended.

Comparison method

1. Identify the feature or capability.
2. Read the Classic value.
3. Read the TGS ELM value.
4. Read the recommendation, if present.
5. Classify the result as a capability gap, a matching status, or a governance/recommendation issue.

Values may be Available, Not available, No, or explanatory policy text. This separates current-state availability from the recommended state.

Examples

• Audio Capture: Classic is available to faculty and students, TGS ELM is marked No, and the recommendation says it should be available.
• Content: the plans differ in who may edit content; the recommendation emphasizes controlled editing and an audit/governance process.
• Email: both plans show Available and the recommendation is to keep it available to PC/Faculty.
• Homepages, IMS Configuration, and IMS CP Import: both plans show Not available, so there is no plan difference for those rows.
• Role Switch: both plans show Available.

Analysis takeaway

Matching values are still useful because they show alignment; differing values reveal capability gaps or policy choices. Record the exact status, distinguish a recommendation from an existing capability, and compare the same dimension across all plan columns before drawing a conclusion.