Free AWS SAA-C03 Actual Exam Questions – Solutions Architect Questions - Question 4 Discussion
The company does not want to commit to multi-year contracts.
Which purchasing option will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
C imo, because partial upfront still offers a decent discount compared to no upfront, which might balance cost savings without full commitment. It keeps flexibility and reduces overall spend better than just no upfront.
B vs C, partial upfront is less flexible and they want no long commitments.
It’s B because the Compute Savings Plan covers both EC2 and Fargate, and the No Upfront option keeps things flexible without locking cash, fitting their no long-term commitment need best.
D imo, the Compute Savings Plan covers EC2 and Fargate, and paying all upfront usually gets the best discount. Since they want cost-effectiveness without multi-year contracts, 1-year all upfront saves more overall.
Option B makes the most sense here because a Compute Savings Plan covers both EC2 and Fargate usage, so it’s flexible across their compute options. The No Upfront payment also means they avoid tying up cash, which aligns with not wanting long-term commitments. The All Upfront or Partial Upfront options might save more money overall but reduce flexibility, which is key for this company. So, B fits the cost-effectiveness and flexibility needs better than the other choices.
B tbh, no upfront means no long commitments, fits their flexible need perfectly.