MAP is one of the most misunderstood programs in the AWS partner ecosystem. Clients either think it’s a blank cheque for their entire migration, or don’t know it exists. Neither is accurate, and the gap between expectation and reality causes friction — usually discovered late in the scoping conversation, when budget assumptions are already made.
Here’s what the program is, what it pays for, and how to tell early whether it’s worth pursuing for your migration.
What MAP is
The AWS Migration Acceleration Program is a structured framework for cloud migrations. It provides two distinct types of financial support: cash funding to offset a portion of the partner’s delivery cost, and AWS credits to offset cloud run costs during the migration. That second piece addresses the “double bubble” — the period where you’re paying for both your existing on-premises infrastructure and the AWS environment simultaneously. MAP reduces that overlap cost so it doesn’t stall the business case.
MAP is administered through partners who hold the MAP Migration Competency — a credential that requires demonstrating delivery capability across the full program. Nuvrix doesn’t hold that credential directly; we work with a MAP-credentialed partner who handles the programme administration while we run the technical engagement.
One thing worth being clear about: MAP is not a Nuvrix product. It’s an AWS programme. We facilitate access to it. The value we add is in the technical delivery — assessment quality, migration architecture, and the work that happens in each phase.
The three phases
Discovery of the current environment — applications, dependencies, infrastructure, and costs. Tooling: AWS Transform or third-party discovery tooling funded through the program. The output is a business case and a migration readiness assessment. This is where you find out whether MAP funding applies to your workload.
Landing Zone configuration, network design, IAM structure, security baseline, and first-wave migration. This is where most of the up-front technical work happens. The foundation built here determines how the migration runs in waves — getting it right saves significant rework later.
The actual workload moves. Depending on what you’re doing, this is a lift-and-shift, a re-platform onto managed services, or a modernisation to a new architecture. Most migrations include a mix. The wave structure lets you move incrementally rather than all at once.
What the funding covers
MAP funding has two components, and confusing them is the most common source of misaligned expectations.
Cash funding offsets a portion of the partner’s delivery cost — the fees charged by the firm running the migration. The amount is based on the scale of the migration and is paid directly to the partner, reducing what you pay them. It’s not a blanket subsidy; it covers a defined portion of the engagement cost, not all of it.
AWS credits offset cloud consumption costs during the program phases. They address the double bubble — the period where you’re paying for both on-premises infrastructure and the AWS environment simultaneously. Credits reduce your AWS bill during the Mobilise and Migrate & Modernise phases so that overlap cost doesn’t become a reason to delay or halt the migration.
Credit sizing is based on the annual recurring revenue the migrated workloads will generate on AWS. Larger migrations attract more credits.
What MAP doesn’t cover
This is where expectations most frequently misalign. MAP funding does not cover:
- Software licensing (Windows, SQL Server, Oracle — these costs are yours)
- Your team’s internal time during the migration
- Post-migration optimisation — right-sizing, reserved instance purchasing, FinOps work
- Workloads that don’t qualify under the MAP assessment criteria
The most common expectation gap: clients assume MAP will subsidise the entire migration project cost. In practice, the cash component offsets a portion of the partner’s fees — not all of them — and the credits reduce AWS consumption costs during the program. The total engagement cost is still largely driven by the scope of work. MAP makes the business case easier to approve; it doesn’t make the migration free.
Whether your migration qualifies
MAP eligibility is assessed during the Assess phase, but there are signals that tell you early whether it’s worth pursuing.
The primary qualifier is the projected annual recurring revenue (ARR) your workloads will generate on AWS once migrated. MAP is structured around ARR tiers, and the level of funding — both cash and credits — scales with that projection. Smaller migrations can still qualify; there’s a MAP Lite track for lower ARR engagements, though the funding available at that tier is more limited.
Beyond ARR, MAP tends to make sense when:
- There’s a committed business case and migration timeline — MAP requires active engagement, not a hypothetical
- The migration has executive sponsorship and internal resource committed to it
- The workloads are appropriate for cloud (not tied to hardware or locality constraints that make migration impractical)
MAP tends not to make sense when:
- The migration is small — a handful of servers or one application
- There’s no clear timeline or committed decision to migrate
- The overhead of programme administration outweighs the credit value
If you’re unsure, the Assess phase is the right place to find out — it answers the eligibility question as part of the discovery work, not as a separate gate.
What to ask before starting
Before any MAP conversation with a partner, it’s worth being clear on three things: what workloads are in scope, what the business case is, and what internal resource you can commit. A partner should ask these questions. If they don’t, it’s worth asking them yourself — the quality of the Assess output depends on the quality of what goes in.
Considering a migration?
We can help you work out whether MAP makes sense for your environment before you commit to anything. That conversation is straightforward — a brief on your workload, what you’re trying to achieve, and what timeline you’re working to.
Talk to us about a migration