Azure Virtual Desktop Cost: A Comprehensive Guide

Azure Virtual Desktop is a cloud-based platform that allows you to virtualize your desktop environment, making it accessible from anywhere and on any device. This means you can work from home, in the office, or on the go, without worrying about the hardware and software requirements.

The cost of Azure Virtual Desktop is a crucial factor to consider when deciding whether to adopt this technology. According to Microsoft, the cost of Azure Virtual Desktop is based on a pay-as-you-go model, where you only pay for the resources you use.

You can expect to pay around $31 per user per month for the Essentials plan, which includes 8 GB of RAM and 32 GB of storage. This plan is suitable for small businesses or individuals who only need basic desktop virtualization.

The cost of Azure Virtual Desktop can add up quickly, especially if you have a large number of users or require more advanced features. However, the benefits of improved flexibility, scalability, and security may outweigh the costs for many organizations.

Azure Virtual Desktop is a game-changer for businesses. You can access virtualized Windows 11 and Windows 10 desktops and apps with the security and reliability of Azure.

This means you can give your employees the flexibility they need to work from anywhere, while maintaining control over the configuration and management of their desktops.

Azure Virtual Desktop is designed to optimize costs, with multi-session capabilities that allow you to pay for only what you use.

With Azure Virtual Desktop, you can meet employee needs while keeping costs under control, making it a smart choice for businesses of all sizes.

Minimizing costs with Azure Virtual Desktop is a top priority for many organizations. Pay only for what you need with usage-based pricing, which can be a huge cost saver.

Optimizing costs is also key, and Azure Virtual Desktop offers multi-session capabilities that can help reduce costs. You can also take advantage of existing eligible Windows or Microsoft 365 per-user licenses to save even more.

The primary costs of Azure Virtual Desktop fall into several categories, with compute (VMs used as session hosts) accounting for 70% of the total costs. OS disks storage and FSLogix storage also make up a significant portion of the costs.

Here's a breakdown of the typical Azure Virtual Desktop costs:

By focusing on these three categories, you can make a big impact on reducing your costs.

Azure Virtual Desktop is a cloud-based virtual desktop and application solution hosted on Azure, offering scalable and secure remote work experiences.

It supports both Windows 10 multi-session and single-session deployments, as well as Windows Server Remote Desktop Session Host (RDSH) environments.

Citrix Workspace, on the other hand, is a comprehensive digital workspace solution that can integrate with Azure Virtual Desktop.

Windows 365 is a simplified version of Azure Virtual Desktop, providing a dedicated Cloud PC for each user with a fixed amount of resources based on the chosen plan.

Azure Virtual Desktop's scalability and security make it a popular choice for organizations, but it requires more technical expertise to manage than Citrix Workspace or Windows 365.

Windows 365 simplifies the deployment and management process, making it more accessible to small and medium-sized businesses.

Citrix Workspace offers a wide range of features, including application and desktop virtualization, secure file sharing, and unified endpoint management.

Minimizing costs is a top priority for any organization looking to adopt a virtual desktop solution. Azure Virtual Desktop offers usage-based pricing, allowing you to pay only for what you need.

Traditional virtual desktop solutions can be expensive, especially when it comes to licensing and hardware costs. Cameyo's Virtual App Delivery (VAD) solution can help reduce these costs significantly. According to a study by Enterprise Strategy Group, organizations can expect a 54% reduction in Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) by using Cameyo instead of traditional VDI.

One of the key ways Cameyo achieves this cost savings is by reducing license and application costs. By providing access to applications on a per-named-user basis, Cameyo helps companies save 75% on license and application costs.

In contrast, Azure Virtual Desktop costs can be broken down into several categories, with compute costs making up the largest portion at 70%. This is followed by OS disks storage at 12% and FSLogix storage at 9%.

Here's a breakdown of the typical Azure Virtual Desktop costs:

By understanding these cost structures, organizations can make informed decisions about their virtual desktop solutions and minimize costs.

Understanding the licensing and pricing aspects of Azure Virtual Desktop is crucial to accurately estimate costs. Azure Virtual Desktop pricing consists of several components that contribute to the overall cost.

Virtual Machine (VM) costs are a significant factor, determined by factors such as VM type, region, scalability, and size. Azure Virtual Machines (Azure VMs) host virtual desktops, and costs vary based on these factors.

User Access Licenses (CALs) are required to access AVD, and come in two types: per-user and per-device CALs. Per-user CALs allow users to access their virtual desktops from any device, while per-device CALs enable multiple users to share a single device.

To leverage Azure Virtual Desktop, certain Microsoft licenses are required. The primary license types include Windows 10 Enterprise Multi-Session, Microsoft 365 E3/E5, and Remote Desktop Services (RDS) CALs.

Here are the primary license types:

Organizations should consider gathering information on user patterns, such as when they log in, when the peak amount of usage is, and how much compute is required for users of the Virtual Desktop environment. This information will come into play when generating a cost from the Azure Calculator.

Infrastructure costs are a significant factor in Azure Virtual Desktop expenses. Azure infrastructure costs include storage costs, network costs, and other expenses.

Storage costs are a major component of Azure Virtual Desktop infrastructure costs. AVD requires storage to store user profiles, OS images, and application data. Azure Storage pricing depends on factors such as capacity, redundancy options, and data transfer.

Network costs are another important consideration for Azure Virtual Desktop infrastructure. Network egress charges may apply when users access data or applications from the AVD environment. Organizations should consider potential network bandwidth requirements and associated costs.

The primary costs of Azure Virtual Desktop can be broken down into several categories. Here's a rough estimate of the typical costs:

By understanding these cost categories, organizations can focus on optimizing the most expensive components of their Azure Virtual Desktop infrastructure.

Azure Virtual Desktop (AVD) costs can be broken down into various components, including compute, storage, and networking. The Azure Calculator is a handy tool for estimating costs, providing a breakdown of costs per user and total cost of deployment.

The primary costs of AVD fall into the following categories: compute (VMs used as session hosts) – 70%, OS disks storage (managed disks attached to session host VMs) – 12%, FSLogix storage (Azure Files or Azure NetApp Files hosting user profiles) – 9%, networking (egress bandwidth, VPN gateways, global VNet peering) – 3%, and other (images, Log Analytics, Azure Automation, backup) – 6%.

To estimate costs, consider factors such as user type, session host VM size, OS disk, FSLogix profile size, and hours in a typical work week. For example, a heavy user type with 2 users per vCPU and a D8s_v4 session host VM size can result in a compute cost of $4,038.

The primary costs of Azure Virtual Desktop fall into several categories, with compute costs making up the largest portion at 70%. Compute costs are followed by OS disk storage, which accounts for 12% of the total costs.

Azure Virtual Desktop costs can be broken down into five categories: compute, OS disks, FSLogix storage, networking, and other costs. The first three categories account for more than 90% of the total costs.

Here's a breakdown of the typical costs of Azure Virtual Desktop:

By understanding the typical costs of Azure Virtual Desktop, you can better plan and estimate your costs for your organization's deployment.

In the AVD Scenario Configuration section of the Azure Calculator, you'll outline your workload scenario to calculate the necessary session hosts (Virtual Machines) for your AVD deployment.

Microsoft provides guidance on assessing your workloads and choosing a Virtual Machine sku size for your session hosts. They suggest basing your workloads on the following types: Light, Medium, Heavy, and Power.

Each workload type indicates the number of users per CPU on a virtual machine, as well as the minimum specifications and the type of Azure VM instance that you can use for a session host.

The default assumption is that AVD will be available for 11 hours per day across 20 working days in a month, which translates to 220 hours of usage. This can be adjusted to fit your actual usage.

To give you a better idea, here are the suggested workload types with their corresponding user-to-VCPU ratios:

Keep in mind that these are general guidelines and may not be suitable for your specific use case. For example, I've found that a workload type between Heavy and Medium, with around 3 users per VCPU, provides a good balance between user spread and end-user experience.

Shrinking the VM OS disk from 128 GB to 64 GB can lead to significant cost savings. This is especially true for multi-session, pooled environments where user data is redirected to FSLogix file shares, and VMs are regularly deleted and re-created from the image.

In these scenarios, the C: drive is not storing any data, and disk space consumption on the system drive remains minimal. By shrinking the OS disk, you can take advantage of just-in-time provisioning and OS Disk Auto-scale with disk size reduction.

The cost savings are substantial, with a reduction of $3,582 (89%) in compute costs, and $169 (79%) in OS disk costs. This translates to a total savings of $4,751.

Here's a breakdown of the estimated costs:

Cost optimization strategies are crucial for Azure Virtual Desktop deployments. By implementing these strategies, you can significantly reduce costs and improve the efficiency of your AVD environment.

Pay only for what you need with usage-based pricing, and take advantage of existing eligible Windows or Microsoft 365 per-user licenses to minimize costs. Auto-scaling VMs can save you up to 70% on compute costs by turning VMs on and off based on user activity.

Reserved Instances (RIs) can save between 40% and 60% on compute costs, but auto-scaling typically saves more. By combining auto-scaling with RIs, you can further reduce costs.

You can also reduce costs by shrinking the size of the default 128 GB OS disk to 64 GB, saving 50% on OS disk storage. Additionally, you can remove whitespace from FSLogix profiles, resulting in a 50% space usage reduction.

Here are the key cost optimization strategies:

VM Power Management is a game-changer when it comes to reducing costs in your Azure Virtual Desktop deployment. By implementing auto-scaling, you can automatically turn VMs on and off based on user activity, saving you a significant amount of money.

The compute cost of session host VMs is the largest cost component, accounting for $2,836 per week. However, since users are only accessing their desktop for 50 hours a week, there's no need to keep the VMs running 24/7.

Auto-scaling can reduce the compute cost by 70%, saving you a whopping $2,836 per week. This is a huge reduction in costs, and it's achieved by simply turning off VMs when they're not in use.

Here's a breakdown of the costs before and after implementing auto-scaling:

By implementing this strategy, you can reduce your total per user cost by 57%. This is a significant reduction in costs, and it's achieved by simply optimizing your VM power management.

Reserved Instances + Auto-Scaling can lead to significant cost savings in Azure Virtual Desktop deployments. By combining these two strategies, you can reduce compute costs by up to 89%.

Auto-scaling, as we've discussed earlier, can save up to 70% on compute costs by turning off VMs when not in use. However, Reserved Instances (RIs) can save an additional 40-60% on compute costs, depending on the reservation term. But, here's the catch: RIs don't make sense when combined with auto-scaling, as you're essentially paying for reserved capacity that's not being used.

The key is to use Nerdio Manager's RI Analytics to determine the optimal number of CPU cores to reserve based on actual usage. This way, you're not over-reserving capacity, and you're still taking advantage of the cost savings offered by RIs. By combining power management, just-in-time VM creation, and 3-year reservations, you can reduce the per-user cost by 73% compared to an unoptimized AVD deployment.

OS Disk Auto-Scaling can save you a pretty penny. By automatically converting the OS disk of stopped VMs to a cheaper standard HDD, you can cut costs by up to 75% compared to an unoptimized deployment.

With Nerdio Manager's OS Disk Auto-scaling, you can specify the "running OS disk type" and "stopped OS disk type" when configuring auto-scaling on a host pool. This allows the auto-scale engine to convert expensive Premium SSD to cheaper Standard HDD as soon as the VM is stopped, and back to Premium SSD right before the VM is started back up.

Auto-scaling can be a game-changer for organizations with variable workloads or seasonal fluctuations. By taking advantage of cheaper storage options when VMs are not in use, you can significantly reduce your OS disk storage costs.

In one example, implementing OS Disk Auto-scaling reduced OS disk costs by $169 or 79% compared to an unoptimized deployment. This is just one more way to optimize your costs and get the most out of your Azure Virtual Desktop deployment.

Here are some numbers to illustrate the potential savings: