SQL Server 2016 Support Ends in 90 Days.
On July 14, 2026, Microsoft’s extended support ends for SQL Server 2016.
They will offer Extended Security Updates that you can buy for 3 more years, either through Azure or your licensing partner. The price is stunning:
- Year 1, July 2026-2027: 75% of the original license price
- Year 2, July 2027-2028: 150% of the original license price
- Year 3, July 2028-2029: 300% of the original license price
- Total for 3 years of security updates: 525% of your original license price
I didn’t know numbers went that high.
This must be that “big data” I keep hearing about. In Microsoft’s credit, I understand they’re working on an ad campaign to raise awareness, and it’ll feature Roger Allen Wade’s classic song. I’m looking forward to those commercials.
If you’re SQL Server 2016 or prior, and you’re having difficulty getting management buy-in for version upgrades, and you’re at a large enough company where you have a security team, send this in an email to your security team:
Does our tech insurance, HIPAA/PCI/SOX compliance needs, or corporate policies require us to be on currently supported software, or is it okay if we’re relying on out-of-support software that no longer gets security updates?
This lets somebody else be the bad cop, and you can connect the security team with your managers & accountants to let them duke it out. If your company doesn’t have a dedicated security team, you can send that same question to your manager, but then you’re the bad cop. That’s not nearly as much fun, but you should still probably send the email just to have something in writing to cover your rear.
Ideally, the security team and/or managers recognize the risk involved in running your shop on Antiques Roadshow software, and you start picking out which version of SQL Server you should replace it with.
If your company’s security team and/or your manager reply in writing saying no, no problems, then you’ve at least done your duty. I will say, though, that if your company is willing to be on unsupported software, they’re probably doing it to save money – and that means they’re probably also cheap on stuff like salary, employee benefits, and training. Long term, you probably wanna start passively looking for work elsewhere before your skills get as out of date as your database server. (What a dark way to end a post, eh?)
9 Comments. Leave new
I am sure that you meant HIPAA rather than HIPPA (common mistake, especially for those whom are not in the healthcare field).
Good catch! Fixed. Thanks!
I am trying to find the specific reference where those cost figures are based (e.g. 75% of the original license price). The 2 links you posted don’t appear to have that information. Before taking this to management, I want to be able to reference a Microsoft source as to their pricing model.
Your links took me to the FAQ for ESU [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/sql-server/end-of-support/extended-security-updates-frequently-asked-questions?view=sql-server-ver16&culture=en-us&country=us] , where I found
“When you sign up, your bill includes a one-time bill-back charge for each SQL Server 2014 (12.x) instance with an active ESU subscription, from July 12, 2023, to the current date. After the current date, each server is billed on an hourly basis. Both charges use the hourly rate ((core count) x (100% of Year 2 ESU license price) / 730).”
That isn’t the same as your handy table. I need to validate your data came from a Microsoft source. Am I missing something?
Sure, since I don’t sell licensing myself, to get an accurate quote for your own company, you’ll want to speak with whoever you purchase your licensing from. Hope that’s fair.
That *is* fair. However, announcing numbers as high as 525% could appear alarming without some further reference to state something like “check with your licensing source” or “your mileage may vary”. I appreciate that you are warning us of the cost involved with the purchase of ESU (I agree they are not cheap!), but there is a fine line between expressing caution, and being alarmist. IMHO I think in this case, you went a bit on the alarmist path without the caution that you normally include.
Thanks for the reminder that it *is* coming soon – how to deal with it is another matter.
That’s because it was on one of the linked pages, and has been removed. If I had unlimited free time, I’d try things like the Wayback Machine to check the archives, but I’m rushing between airport gates to make a flight. Thanks for understanding, and hope you enjoy the free posts and information. Cheers!
You can also try Googling, and there are links in the AI summaries that may be able to help: https://www.brentozar.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/IMG_9055.jpeg
Enjoy your flight. I should let you know that I value your postings, and have them delivered (and read) daily. I find the majority of them to be EXTREMELY useful, and value your contribution to our field.
Having said that, I also found that AI summary, and did some digging on that summary. If AI suggests something, I tend to want to validate what it is basing it’s opinion on. It appears that it was picked up here [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/5704901/request-sql-server-2016-esu-year-3-licensing-cost] and
responded to by a non-Microsoft person.
Another thread had these links involved :
1) [https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/24/microsoft_windows_support/#:~:text=SQL%20Server%202016,%20for%20which,%C2%AE] which lead to…
2) [https://www.atlassystems.com/blog/sql-server-2016-cost-vs-upgrade-migration] which was an ‘Atlas Systems” post dated 25 Nov 2025 which stated “Extended Support escalates rapidly: ESU costs climb from 75% of license cost year one to 300% by year three, ultimately exceeding full SQL 2022 upgrade expenses”. It also had a table WITH THE EXACT PERCENTAGE FIGURES THAT YOU STATED. Too bad it was a page from a consulting firm that appears to sell Microsoft upgrade solutions…and may have been a sales pitch at some point. There were no links to Microsoft that I saw to justify the figures presented.
As you say, the responsible thing to do would be to check with your company’s Microsoft Licensing specialists and get the true figures for a given scenario.
I’m not saying the figures are wrong – just that I can’t find them from a Microsoft source.
And sometimes, Linda, I have information that I can’t link to publicly. That’s why I’ve suggested that you contact your sales rep. Hope that’s fair. Cheers!