Oracle Java SE vs Azul Platform Core: Cost and Support Comparison

Introduction:
Java Standard Edition (Java SE) underpins critical enterprise applications, but recent licensing changes have complicated how organizations pay for it. Oracle’s 2023 switch to an employee-based subscription model for Java SE has raised costs and compliance concerns for many businesses. At the same time, third-party vendors like Azul offer Java SE distributions (Azul Platform Core, based on OpenJDK) with different licensing metrics and support arrangements. This article compares Oracle Java SE and Azul Platform Core for CIOs and procurement professionals, focusing on licensing terms, costs (including on-premises vs. cloud usage), support policies, release cadence, security updates, and enterprise risk considerations. We conclude with Recommendations to help you navigate contract decisions and avoid common vendor pitfalls.

Licensing Models and Terms

Oracle Java SE (Employee-Based Subscription): Oracle now licenses Java SE by counting all employees in your organization, regardless of how many use Java. This Java SE Universal Subscription requires paying for every full-time, part-time, temporary employee, contractor, or agent supporting your operations. In practice, it functions like an enterprise-wide site license – if any internal use of Oracle’s Java is needed, you must license your entire workforce. Oracle touts this as simplifying compliance (one metric covering desktops, servers, and cloud deployments). However, it means organizations with relatively small Java footprints still pay for 100% of the staff. The employee count is determined when ordering, and a broad definition of “employee” is used. Notably, even employees or contractors who don’t use Java still count toward the license. This model replaced Oracle’s legacy per-user and per-processor licensing in January 2023.

• On-Premises vs. Cloud: Oracle’s employee-based subscription covers Java use on any environment – on-prem servers, desktops, or third-party clouds – as long as your organization is licensed. There is no exemption for cloud usage on platforms like AWS or Azure; running Oracle’s JDK on a VM or container in a non-Oracle cloud still requires licensing your total employee count. (Oracle Cloud Infrastructure services may include Java usage rights as part of the service, but this is an Oracle-specific bundling and does not apply to other clouds.) The Oracle Java SE subscription is tied to your headcount, not where Java runs.
• Term and Termination: Oracle subscriptions are typically annual (12-month term). If you choose not to renew, your rights to use Oracle’s commercial Java builds and to receive updates/support end immediately. You would need to uninstall or replace Oracle JDK in production with an alternative (such as Oracle’s own OpenJDK builds or another vendor’s) to stay compliant after a lapse. This creates a form of lock-in – dropping the subscription without a migration plan could leave your Java applications unsupported.

Azul Platform Core (Usage-Based Subscription): Azul’s Java SE offering, Azul Platform Core, uses a usage-based licensing model rather than a blanket employee count. Azul typically charges based on two metrics: “vCores” for servers/cloud and the number of Desktops for client machines. A vCore roughly equates to one virtual CPU or hardware core allocated to Java workloads (similar to a CPU-core metric), and desktops are counted per endpoint running Java (e.g., developer workstations or end-user PCs running Java apps). Pricing is tiered by volume for each category. For example, an Azul subscription might be purchased for a block of vCores (say up to 500 vCores) and/or a block of desktops (e.g., up to 1,000 desktops), with higher tiers available as needed. This allows organizations to license only the actual Java instances rather than the entire employee base.

• On-Premises vs. Cloud: Azul’s model is environment-agnostic; you can deploy Azul’s OpenJDK-based runtime on-prem or in any cloud. Licensing vCores covers cloud instances the same way as physical or virtual servers on-prem. Azul offers flexible options such as cloud consumption billing (for instance, Azul’s builds are available on AWS Marketplace with pay-as-you-go pricing). Subscriptions are typically annual contracts, but usage-based tracking means you could scale your coverage up or down at renewal based on actual need. If you run fewer Java servers, you don’t have to pay for more vCores than you use – a sharp contrast to Oracle’s fixed employee metric.
• Permitted Use and Indemnity: Azul Platform Core provides a fully compatible OpenJDK distribution (Azul Zulu), a drop-in replacement for Oracle Java SE. It includes commercial support and indemnification (protection against IP or patent issues with Java). There are no usage prohibitions on production use – you can run it anywhere as long as you’ve licensed the instances/cores you deploy. Because it’s based on OpenJDK (GPL-licensed code), using Azul’s Java does not carry the same restrictions as Oracle’s proprietary JDK license, reducing legal complexity. If you stop subscribing, you can continue running the last Azul OpenJDK build you obtained (open source), though you’d stop receiving further updates or support.

Key Licensing Implications: Oracle’s simpler model can lead to significant over-licensing. As one analysis put it, Oracle has “manipulated licensing metrics to support higher license counts and revenues… Nearly every Java customer will now face higher counts, regardless of actual access and usage”. In practical terms, a company might have only 300 Java users or a handful of Java servers, but if it has 3,000 total employees on payroll, Oracle’s policy demands licensing all 3,000. Azul’s approach, by contrast, aligns cost to actual Java consumption – if only 300 desktops run Java or you have, say, 50 server cores running Java, you can license exactly those. This granularity can greatly reduce waste. The trade-off is that Oracle’s single metric might be easier to track (one doesn’t need to count installations or cores). In contrast, Azul requires monitoring your Java deployments to ensure you stay within the purchased vCore/desktop counts (though Azul’s tools can help inventory these). For most enterprises, the flexibility of not paying for unused capacity far outweighs the effort to track usage.

Cost Comparison and Pricing Examples

License costs between Oracle Java SE and Azul Platform Core differ dramatically due to the metrics above. Oracle’s pricing is per employee, per month; Azul’s is per vCore or desktop, per year. Below is a direct comparison using realistic scenarios for organizations of 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 employees, illustrating the annual subscription costs:

Table: Estimated annual Java SE subscription costs for Oracle vs. Azul. Oracle pricing is per Oracle’s published Java SE Universal Subscription. Azul pricing is based on published list prices for Azul Platform Core (Premium Support) at representative usage levels.

The table shows that Oracle Java SE is significantly more expensive in these scenarios. Even at 10,000 employees, Oracle’s per-head rate drops to $8.25, and the annual cost is nearly $1 million. Azul’s cost for a comparable Java deployment is roughly a quarter of that (around $264k in our example). The gap can be even larger in organizations where not every employee needs Java:

• If only a subset of employees use Java, Oracle’s model effectively charges for a lot of non-use. In contrast, Azul’s cost would decrease with fewer desktops or server cores. For instance, a company with 5,000 employees but perhaps only 500 desktops running a Java application would still pay $630k/year to Oracle, but might pay an order of magnitude less with Azul (e.g., ~$49k for 500 desktops plus any server usage). This highlights how Oracle’s model can result in paying for shelfware licenses – a form of waste – whereas Azul lets you pay for what you run.
• Oracle’s FAQ notes that its pricing starts at $15 per employee per month (for small deployments) and can drop as low as $5.25 at very high volumes. However, even at $5.25, 50,000 employees would spend over $3 million annually. Oracle does offer custom quotes beyond 50k employees, but the total cost scales linearly with headcount. Industry analysts have observed that the new model has led to 2–5× cost increases for most organizations (and in some cases up to 10×) compared to Oracle’s older licensing. This is because under the old model, you only licensed actual users or CPU cores; now, everybody counts.
• On the other hand, Azul’s pricing generally results in 70% or more cost savings on support fees versus Oracle for an equivalent Java estate. Azul claims customers typically spend at least 70% less, and independent reports have confirmed that Oracle’s Java subscriptions cost several times more than OpenJDK-based alternatives. Our example scenarios above are consistent with ~70–75% lower costs with Azul. These savings can translate to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for mid-sized enterprises, and millions for large ones.

Cost Considerations for On-Prem vs. Cloud: The cost models for Oracle and Azul apply similarly to cloud deployments, but there are operational nuances. With Oracle, there is no direct way to tie cost to cloud resource usage – even if you run ephemeral cloud containers or scale your VMs up and down, Oracle’s bill doesn’t change as long as your employee count is the same. You pay the fixed monthly fee per employee regardless of actual runtime hours or instances. Azul’s model can be more cloud-friendly: if you use autoscaling in the cloud, you could size your Azul subscription to cover peak vCore usage or use a consumption model. For example, Azul’s AWS Marketplace offering charges hourly per vCPU used. This means that with Azul, you can pay only for cloud instances when they’re running, which provides better cost elasticity. By contrast, Oracle’s subscription is a sunk cost yearly that you must justify with sufficient utilization. In summary, Azul’s pricing aligns with modern cloud operational models, whereas Oracle’s metric is decoupled from actual usage (it’s essentially a corporate license fee).

Support, Updates, and Long-Term Support (LTS) Policies

Support Quality and SLAs: Oracle and Azul offer 24×7 support for Java SE, but the scope and approach differ. Oracle’s Java support is provided via My Oracle Support, with Oracle’s global support organization and language coverage. As the stewards of Java, Oracle’s engineers have deep expertise in the platform. Oracle’s subscription includes help not just with the JDK itself. Still, they claim to offer “triage support” for your entire Java environment, even working with third-party library and runtime vendors on issues. In theory, Oracle might assist if your problem lies in an open-source Java framework interfacing with the JVM. However, Oracle’s support is one of many product lines they handle, and customers sometimes report that Java support requests can be slower or get routed through generalists unless you’re a very large client.

Azul, by contrast, is a company focused exclusively on Java. Azul’s support team consists of Java specialists (the company highlights that their support engineers average 20+ years of JVM experience). They have a reputation for being very responsive – Azul advertises strict support SLAs and a 100% customer satisfaction rating for support. In independent reviews, Azul Platform Core is often noted as a “one-to-one replacement for Oracle Java SE at dramatically lower costs” with strong support and coverage of many platforms. Azul offers tiered support levels (Standard vs. Premium) to match needs. We cited the pricing for Premium (24×7) support, but Standard (business-hours) support is available at a lower cost if that fits your operations.

Both vendors can handle critical bug fixes and questions in practice, but Azul’s Java-centric focus may offer a more personalized support experience. For example, if you encounter a JVM bug in production, Azul is known to back-port fixes and provide hot-patches for customers if needed. Oracle will also fix bugs, but their timelines might be tied to quarterly updates unless it’s a severity 1 issue. Azul’s subscription includes indemnification against intellectual property claims related to Java, a legal safety net some financial and industrial firms require (Oracle also implicitly covers this by licensing Oracle Java to you, but Azul makes it an explicit part of the service).

Release Cadence and Update Availability: Oracle controls Java’s release train. They publish new Java versions every six months, with designated LTS (Long-Term Support) releases every two years (Java 11 in 2018, Java 17 in 2021, Java 21 in 2023, etc.). Oracle provides quarterly Critical Patch Updates (CPUs) for security fixes on supported versions, usually aligned with their company-wide patch schedule (e.g., January, April, July, October). These contain security patches and critical bug fixes. Oracle Java subscribers get these updates for their versions via the support portal. If a serious zero-day vulnerability arises, Oracle can issue out-of-band emergency patches, but it’s relatively rare – the quarterly cycle is the norm.

Azul Platform Core follows the same release cadence for Java versions because it’s based on OpenJDK. Azul ships updates for Java on a similar quarterly schedule, often on the exact day Oracle releases the OpenJDK updates (Azul participates in the OpenJDK project and is typically very prompt). One advantage of WITOF is that it offers two types of builds: the standard quarterly update (which may include minor enhancements) and “stabilized” security-only updates. Enterprises that prefer only security fixes (to minimize change risk) can opt for those stabilized builds. Azul is also proactive in delivering out-of-cycle critical fixes. Azul may issue a patch or interim build for its customers if a bug or security issue is urgent and can’t wait for the next quarter. This flexibility can be valuable for zero-day vulnerabilities or urgent performance bugs – you’re not necessarily stuck waiting for the official schedule.

Long-Term Support (LTS) Guarantees: LTS releases are key for production stability. Oracle promises to support each LTS release for an extended period (with updates available to subscribers). Currently, Oracle provides around 8 years of support for each LTS version, on average. For example, Java 8 (released in 2014) will have Oracle Premier Support until at least 2030 for subscribers, and Java 11 (2018) until 2032. Oracle’s roadmap shows roughly 8 years from release as the support window for LTS, possibly extendable via extended support contracts. However, Oracle’s free public updates for LTS are much shorter, typically only the first 6 months to a year. (Oracle ended free public updates for Java 11 in 2019, right after it became an LTS, shifting Java 11 into a paid support model. They have since introduced a no-cost license for new releases, discussed below, but with limitations.)

Azul’s support guarantee meets or exceeds Oracle’s. Azul commits to at least 8 years of bug fixes and security updates for each LTS release, plus two additional years of extended support for migration assistance. In other words, Azul offers a minimum 10-year support horizon on LTS versions (8 years full support + 2 years extended). In some cases, Azul has gone beyond this – for legacy Java 6 and 7, which Oracle long ago ended support for, Azul offers extended “Legacy” support up to 2027 for customers who need to keep those older JVMs running. (These legacy support options for Java 6/7 come with an additional fee but are available – a lifesaver for certain embedded or old enterprise apps that cannot upgrade.) The key point is that Azul’s LTS support timelines match Oracle’s or extend further, so you won’t lose out on support life by switching. Both Oracle and Azul support Java 8 and 11 into the 2030s for those still on those versions, and both will likely support Java 17 into at least 2029 or beyond.

For non-LTS (short-term support, or STS, versions like Java 20), Oracle only provides updates until the next release (6 months). Azul similarly offers support for those short-term versions for their active period (at least 6 months of support), but most enterprises stick to LTS releases in production.

Security Patch Availability: Security is a paramount concern, and both vendors deliver the critical patches, but accessibility differs:

• Oracle’s security patches (CPU updates) are only available to paying customers (or users of Oracle Cloud services in some cases). If you are not subscribed, you technically don’t have the right to deploy those patched Oracle JDK binaries in production. This has compliance implications – some companies stayed on older Java builds to avoid paying, exposing themselves to known vulnerabilities.
• By OpenJDK, Azul makes current updates available in its free Zulu builds for the open community on some versions (e.g., the latest LTS). However, the extended patch support for older LTS (after Oracle stops public updates) is only for Azul subscribers. For example, after Oracle stopped free Java 8 updates, Azul continued releasing Zulu 8 updates for everyone for a while, but eventually, such long-term updates became a paid service. As a subscriber, you can access all the latest security-fixed builds on all your supported versions.
• Regarding speed, Azul tends to release security patches as soon as Oracle’s open-source OpenJDK code is out (often on the same day). Both Oracle and Azul address CVEs promptly. A notable difference is that Azul can issue a fix for a security issue even for versions that Oracle no longer patches. For instance, if a new Java 7 vulnerability were discovered today, Oracle would not create a patch (Java 7 support ended for Oracle in 2022). Still, Azul likely would provide a fix for its customers on Java 7 since they support it until 2027.

Cloud Support: Whether running on bare metal, VMs, containers, or Kubernetes, both Oracle and Azul support Java in those contexts. Azul’s support team will help troubleshoot issues in cloud environments (they even support Azul Zulu on modern platforms like containers; their support SLAs cover “any JVM, including Oracle’s, for guidance” in some plans). Oracle similarly will support issues on certified platforms (Oracle JDK is certified on major OS platforms, and Oracle will likely assist with cloud deployments as long as you’re using a supported OS). There is no major difference here, except Azul’s business model is aligned to cloud-native use (vCore metric and willingness to do usage-based billing). In contrast, Oracle is more old-fashioned (treating cloud as just another installation, with the license tied to the company, not the actual cloud usage).

Compliance Risk and Audit Considerations

Compliance risk is one of the biggest concerns for CIOs with Oracle’s Java. Oracle is well-known for its license audits in other product areas (databases, etc.), and Java is no exception. In fact, after years of Java being free, Oracle’s move to monetize it has led to a surge in audit activity targeting Java customers. Here’s how the compliance landscape differs:

• Oracle Java SE Compliance: If you use Oracle’s JDK in production without an active subscription, you are out of compliance under Oracle’s terms (for versions after Java 8 update 202, or any use of Java 11 and above outside development/test, per the 2019+ OTN license). Oracle has been auditing organizations and can impose backdated charges or penalties for unlicensed Java deployments. Under the new employee-based model, the compliance requirement is stark: everybody is licensed, or you should not use Oracle Java in production. This all-or-nothing condition means there is a risk of inadvertent non-compliance. For example, a developer might download and install an Oracle JDK on a few servers. If those servers run production workloads and you haven’t subscribed enterprise-wide, Oracle could flag this in an audit. The cost exposure is high because Oracle would then demand you license your entire workforce (perhaps at back rates) as a settlement. Oracle’s broad definition of “employee” also introduces risk if your HR records are not aligned. They count contractors and part-timers, so an audit could catch a higher number than you anticipated. Oracle is even known to cross-check publicly available data (like Google or LinkedIn estimates of your employee count) against what you declare. Any discrepancy could trigger compliance disputes. Additionally, Oracle’s licensing rules for virtualization (in the old model) were complex; the new model sidesteps some of that by focusing on headcount, but if you are still on legacy Java SE subscriptions (processor-based), you must be careful with VM configurations and the Oracle core factor rules.
• Azul Platform Core Compliance: Azul’s licensing is more traditional because you have a contract for X number of cores and/or desktops. Compliance means not exceeding those numbers (or if you do, informing Azul to adjust your subscription). Generally, this is easier to track via tooling (inventory of Java installations and server cores). Azul is not known for aggressive audits; they rely on trust and renewal discussions to right-size licenses as a smaller vendor. Of course, any software contract can be enforced – if a customer blatantly overruns their licensed quantities, Azul would address it at renewal or through true-up fees. But the risk of punitive audit penalties is far lower than with Oracle. Using Azul’s JDK also eliminates the Oracle license trap: the Azul runtime is open source. So, even if you accidentally deploy one extra instance beyond your support contract, you’re not violating copyright terms – you’d just be out of support for that instance. This is a more flexible posture from a compliance perspective.
• Mixed Environment Caution: Some organizations attempt a hybrid approach – e.g., keep Oracle Java for some applications and use OpenJDK (Azul or others) for new projects. Be aware that if Oracle comes in for an audit, any instance of Oracle’s JDK found in use can subject you to the employee-based license requirement. Mixing and hoping to only license part of your company is risky. From a compliance standpoint, it’s often safer to standardize on one Java distribution to avoid confusion. Many firms, faced with Oracle’s audit risk, migrate entirely to Azul or another OpenJDK distro to remove Oracle from the equation.

Procurement and Legal Considerations: Negotiating with Oracle on Java can be challenging. Oracle believes the new subscription “simplifies” licensing, so they are not typically open to customizing the metric. You can’t, for instance, easily exclude a division or subset of employees – the policy states that all employees worldwide under the ordering entity must be counted. Some large enterprises have tried negotiating license agreements that cap costs, but most will use Oracle’s standard tiered pricing. Suppose your organization is already a big Oracle customer (database/middleware). In that case, Oracle may bundle Java into a larger deal or offer short-term discounts, but you should approach such offers carefully. Accepting a bundle could inadvertently extend Oracle’s audit rights or contractual entanglements across product lines. Always review Oracle’s Java contract terms in detail, including how they define employees, determine counts, and any clauses about true-ups if your headcount grows during the term.

There is often more procurement flexibility with Azul (or any third-party). You might negotiate based on your specific environment – e.g., if you have a high ratio of servers to employees, you could focus on vCore licensing; if mostly desktops, maybe a desktop-heavy deal. Azul offers an “unlimited” tier for large deployments, which could be negotiated to cover your whole enterprise usage at a fixed cost (usually far less than Oracle’s cost for the same size company). The contract terms with Azul are generally straightforward: you subscribe to support for a certain period. There’s no tricky definition of who counts as a user. This simplicity can shorten procurement cycles and reduce the legal review burden compared to Oracle’s terms.

In summary, Oracle’s model carries higher compliance risk – you must always be vigilant and adopt an “audit-ready” stance. Azul’s model is lower risk and more flexible, but you must maintain an accurate usage count to adjust subscriptions appropriately.

Procurement Flexibility and Long-Term Cost Predictability

From a budgeting perspective, CIOs and procurement leaders must consider not just the sticker price today, but how these models play out over multiple years:

• Cost Predictability: Oracle argues that an employee-based subscription offers cost predictability – since you know your headcount, you can forecast the Java cost easily, and it doesn’t matter how many servers or applications you spin up. This is true to an extent: if your employee count is stable and Oracle commits to fixed pricing tiers, you have a consistent annual cost. However, business growth or M&A can cause employee counts to rise, potentially drastically increasing your Java fees. A merger or acquisition could suddenly push you into a higher pricing tier or require a new deal with Oracle. Conversely, downsizing doesn’t neatly reduce your Java cost until renewal time (and even then, Oracle may have minimums or may not prorate if you signed multi-year deals). Azul’s usage-based model is inherently more elastic – if you decommission servers or reduce Java use, you can likely scale down your subscription in the next term and save money. This aligns with trends toward cloud and microservices, where usage might go up or down.
  Regarding multi-year predictability, Oracle has a track record of frequently changing Java licensing terms (the 2023 change was the fourth major licensing change in four years for Java). This introduces uncertainty – will prices per employee increase? Will the model change yet again in a few years? Being focused on Java support, Azul is less likely to impose sudden model changes on customers; their business depends on providing a stable, low-cost alternative.
• Budgeting and Renewal: With Oracle, expect Java subscription costs to appear as a significant line item tied to headcount. It’s effectively a tax on your workforce. This could become a point of contention if the IT budget is separate from HR growth – e.g., if HR plans to hire 500 more people next year, you need to budget an extra few hundred thousand for Java if using Oracle. Azul’s model ties the budget to the IT infrastructure. This can be easier to manage within IT departments (growing application capacity is directly linked to budget needs).
  Additionally, Azul’s overall lower cost means better long-term ROI. Many organizations are concerned that paying Oracle’s high fees yields little incremental benefit (since the code is virtually the same as free OpenJDK). By switching to Azul, those savings each year can be reinvested elsewhere.
• Procurement Leverage: When dealing with Oracle, customers often feel they have little leverage – Java is ubiquitous, and Oracle sets the terms. But the existence of mature OpenJDK alternatives like Azul does give you leverage. We have seen companies use competitive quotes from Azul to negotiate better terms from Oracle. Oracle sales reps may offer a discount or bundle if they know you are considering leaving. Be cautious: short-term discounts might disappear later, but it’s a potential tactic. Conversely, Azul knows Oracle is the incumbent and often pitches a substantially lower TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) to entice customers. Procurement can use this competition to the company’s advantage. The flexibility of Azul’s offerings (like different support levels or custom pricing for unique situations) means you can tailor a deal that fits your technical and financial needs more precisely than Oracle’s one-size model.
• Vendor Stability and Roadmap: Lou also wants to consider the vendor’s commitment. In the long term, Oracle’s commitment to Java is strong – it guides the platform’s future. However, Oracle’s priority is monetizing that platform, which could mean further price hikes or bundling with Oracle Cloud in the future (for example, Oracle could decide that Java support is free only if you run on Oracle Cloud, etc.). Azul’s entire business rides on Java’s success outside of Oracle. They have been around for nearly two decades and have a stable track record, and their pricing is expected to remain a fraction of Oracle’s. Azul’s roadmap for Java (through their builds) tracks Oracle’s, so you won’t miss out on any technology updates by switching. Their focus is to exceed Oracle in service and not deviate in product, meaning they don’t fork Java but stay compatible.

Cloud Strategy Impact: It’s worth noting how each model impacts a cloud-first strategy. If your enterprise is moving to the cloud, Oracle’s licensing doesn’t directly reward efficiency or containerization – no matter how optimized your cloud deployment is, you pay per employee. Azul’s model can incentivize optimization (e.g., if you reduce vCore count via efficient coding or using Azul’s optimized JVM on fewer cores, you save money). Also, Azul offers Azul Platform Prime (formerly Zing) as an optional product for higher performance, which can reduce hardware/cloud footprint by improving JVM performance. That’s beyond standard Java SE, but it’s something Oracle doesn’t offer (Oracle’s Java is one-size-fits-all, performance-wise). Procurement can consider whether investing in such performance can cut infrastructure costs – Azul claims some clients cut cloud costs by 20% with their tuned JVM. While Platform Prime is separate, it exemplifies how Azul’s licensing can align with value delivered (performance per core), whereas Oracle’s costs are fixed regardless of performance or usage efficiency.

Recommendations

1. Inventory and Assess Your Java Usage: Start by understanding where Java is used in your organization (servers, applications, desktops) and how many instances you truly need. Many companies discover that only a fraction of employees or systems actively use Java. This insight is crucial for decision-making. If your “Java footprint” is much smaller than your total employee count, that’s a red flag that Oracle’s model will make you overpay. Use this data to model costs under Bracle and Azul (or other OpenJDK options). The goal is to translate technical usage into financial terms for management.

2. Evaluate Alternatives Before Renewing Oracle: If you are an Oracle Java customer up for renewal, do not treat it as a rubber-stamp spend. Oracle’s shift to the employee metric has drastically increased costs for many. Proactively engage with alternatives like Azul Platform Core or Red Hat OpenJDK support. Obtain quotes – Azul often creates a custom quote that undercuts Oracle significantly for your specific environment. Having a viable alternative offer positions you to potentially switch and save 50–80%, giving you leverage in negotiations. Some organizations have used third-party support quotes to negotiate with Oracle, but even if Oracle offers a 20% discount, it may still be far costlier than Azul. Carefully weigh the value of sticking with Oracle’s official support versus the cost savings and sufficient support from a third party.

3. Beware of All-or-Nothing Licensing Traps: If you decide to stay with Oracle Java SE, be very mindful of the contract terms:

• Count your Employees Accurately: Ensure you and Oracle agree on the definition of employee count. Include contractors if required. It might be wise to slightly over-count anticipated employees to avoid compliance issues mid-term (since Oracle counts at order time, if you grow later, you could technically be out of compliance unless you true-up). Negotiate how acquisitions or growth are handled.
• Audit Clauses: Scrutinize audit rights in the contract. Oracle will typically reserve the right to audit. Try to get reasonable notice periods and clarify dispute resolution. If an audit finds unlicensed usage, Oracle’s default remedy will require purchasing subscriptions for all employees (for the audited period). There’s essentially no smaller penalty, due to how the metric works.
• Legacy Use: If you have older Java versions (6, 7, 8) in use, confirm whether those are covered. Oracle’s new subscription should cover Java SE across versions universally, but any separate support contracts for old versions might be merged. If you had an older Java SE Advanced or similar, clarify its fate.

4. Plan Migration if Switching to Azul (or OpenJDK): If you choose Azul Platform Core, plan the transition carefully but confidently. Technically, switching from Oracle JDK to Azul Zulu builds is usually seamless – they are tested to be Java SE standard compliant and a drop-in replacement. Still, perform due diligence: test your critical applications with Azul’s JDK in a staging environment to ensure no unexpected issues. Commonly, it’s very smooth. Azul can assist with tooling (they have an inventory tool to find all Oracle JDK installs and even guides for migration). The main tasks are uninstalling Oracle JDK (or removing it from PATH), installing Azul, and monitoring. Be sure to also adjust any infrastructure automation (Docker images, CI/CD pipelines, etc.) to pull Azul’s JDK instead of Oracle’s. From a license standpoint, once you’re confident in Azul, terminate Oracle support in writing to avoid auto-renewals or assumptions of continued use.

5. Leverage Contract Flexibility: When contracting with Azul or another vendor, tailor the deal to your needs:

• Negotiate the mix of vCore vs desktop counts to match your environment. If you are heavily server-side, focus on vCores. If you have thousands of employee laptops running a Java-based client (less common today), focus on desktop pricing. Azul’s published tiers are a starting point; large commitments can sometimes earn volume discounts beyond the list tiers.
• Consider multi-year agreements with Azul to lock in rates. Their pricing is already low, but a multi-year commitment might provide even better terms or protect against future price changes.
• Ensure the support SLAs meet your enterprise requirements (e.g., 1-hour response for Sev-1 issues on a 24/7 basis if you need that for mission-critical systems). Azul Premium covers this; Standard might not, so choose appropriately. Even with Oracle, clarify support response expectations – Oracle support can sometimes be slower unless you escalate; having defined SLAs is advantageous.

6. Monitor Java Releases and Policies: Monitor Java’s release roadmap and Oracle’s licensing announcements. Oracle has introduced things like the Oracle NFTC (No-Fee Terms and Conditions) license for certain Java versions (Java 17+), which allows free production use for a limited time (essentially, you must upgrade to each new release annually to stay free). This is Oracle’s attempt to provide a “free” option if you can constantly update, but it’s not practical for most enterprises needing stability. However, it shows that Oracle might adjust strategies again. For long-term planning, assume that Oracle will maximize revenue, not necessarily your savings. Alternatives like Azul base their business on being cost-effective and predictable. Align your Java strategy with your risk tolerance. If you don’t want to worry about surprise cost hikes or policy shifts, leaning on the OpenJDK ecosystem (with a vendor like Azul for support) insulates you from Oracle’s maneuvering.

7. Watch for Vendor Lock-In and Bundling: A common pitfall in enterprise IT procurement is getting locked in with a vendor beyond what you intended. With Oracle, beware of clauses or sales tactics that bundle Java with other services (for instance, “free Java if you move workloads to Oracle Cloud” or discounts on Java if you renew an Oracle Database license concurrently). These might seem attractive, but could entangle your Java decision with other technology choices. Evaluate each component on its own merits and costs. Similarly, Azul (or others) might upsell additional tools (like Azul Intelligence Cloud or the Prime performance JVM). These can be beneficial, but scrutinize their necessity. Stick to your requirements – e.g., if you need Java SE support, you shouldn’t be forced into extras.

8. Ensure Strong Governance Over Java Usage: Post-contract, implement governance to avoid “license creep.” For Oracle subscribers, this means ensuring no one deploys Oracle JDK outside the agreed scope (which is the whole company – so perhaps ensuring new acquisitions are licensed or quickly migrated). For Azul users, this means tracking if new projects start using Java so you can license additional vCores if needed. Good internal software asset management will prevent unpleasant surprises. Regularly run scans to identify Oracle JDK installations (especially if developers might inadvertently use Oracle JDK 8). One common scenario is developer machines: under Oracle’s terms, development use is free, but a developer might accidentally push an Oracle JRE into production. Set policies to use OpenJDK builds in CI/CD pipelines to avoid that scenario entirely.

9. Engage Stakeholders with the Big Picture: When presenting the Java licensing decision to executives, frame it in terms of risk and total cost of ownership. Emphasize that Oracle’s new model could cost X million over N years with little added technical benefit, and carries audit/compliance risks. Contrast that with Azul’s approach: significantly lower cost, adequate (even superior) support, and alignment with open-source Java, reducing vendor lock-in. CIOs appreciate that moving to an OpenJDK solution fosters innovation and keeps the platform open. The goal is to clarify that sticking with Oracle essentially pays a premium for the Oracle brand name, whereas switching saves money without sacrificing quality or security.

10. Plan for the Future: Whatever choice you make, revisit it periodically. The Java ecosystem is dynamic; new LTS releases will come, and support needs will evolve (for example, Java 17 uptake, then Java 21, etc.). If you go with Oracle now, keep evaluating alternatives, as you might decide to switch later (just time it so you don’t lapse on support). If you go with Azul, keep an eye on their performance and any changes in their offerings or the competitive landscape (IBM, Red Hat, Amazon Corretto, etc., also provide Java distributions – competition helps keep pricing in check). In any case, maintain the ability to be agile with your Java strategy. The worst-case scenario is complacency leading to unnecessary spending or compliance exposure.

Final Warning: Oracle’s licensing tactics with Java have been described as aggressive, aimed at maximizing revenue from the Java installed base. Procurement professionals should approach Oracle Java contracts with the same caution as an Oracle database or ERP deal. Do not underestimate the compliance enforcement – Oracle’s Java audits are reportedly on the rise, and many organizations have been caught off-guard, having assumed Java was “free” or that Oracle wouldn’t bother with smaller installations. On the flip side, do not underestimate the viability of alternatives. Azul and others have proven, at many Fortune 500 companies, that they can deliver Java support at least on par with Oracle at a fraction of the cost. The Java platform remains robust and largely open-source; you have choices. Use that fact to drive your organization’s smarter, more cost-effective procurement outcome.