+44 (0)1482 770583
hello@systechitsolutions.co.uk
Azure Virtual Desktop Consultancy
Assessment, migration and cost optimisation for Azure Virtual Desktop, led by the Microsoft MVP who wrote the book on it.
Azure Virtual Desktop, assessed, built and tuned properly
An AVD estate almost never fails at go-live. It fails quietly, months later, when the Azure bill has drifted well past the business case and nobody left in the building can explain why host pools are sized the way they are.
AVD is the platform with the most levers, which is exactly why it's the one most often left un-tuned. Host pools sized for a Monday peak keep running at that size every night and weekend, FSLogix storage bought on habit rather than measured concurrency, and an image so bloated with applications that a routine patch cycle has become a quarterly project. None of it trips an alarm. It just shows up on the invoice, a little worse every month, until a renewal or a budget review forces the question nobody had an answer to.
We run AVD consultancy as three distinct phases, and we're explicit about which one you're buying. Assessment: a structured review of your current estate, or your requirements if you haven't built yet, covering host pool design, FSLogix and storage, image strategy, autoscale configuration, licensing and actual Azure spend against actual usage. Migration: the build or rebuild itself, sized and sequenced from what the assessment found, not from a template deployment. Optimisation: the ongoing discipline of keeping cost and performance tuned as headcount, applications and Azure's own pricing all keep moving after go-live.
Every recommendation is scoped to your actual application set and concurrency pattern rather than a rule of thumb, because that's where AVD's cost and performance both genuinely get decided. Where Windows 365 is a better fit for part or all of your estate, we'll say so in the assessment rather than build AVD anyway.
Everything you need, managed for you
What does an AVD consultancy engagement actually involve?
Three phases, run as separate, honestly scoped pieces of work rather than one undifferentiated project. The assessment comes first and is deliberately cheap to say yes to: we look at what you have or what you're planning to build, and hand back a written recommendation covering platform fit, host pool design, storage, image strategy and a genuine cost projection, not a sales deck. Nothing gets built on the strength of a hunch.
Migration follows only if AVD is the right answer, and is scoped and sequenced from what the assessment actually found: host pools, scaling plans, FSLogix and storage, image pipeline, application delivery and Conditional Access, built or rebuilt to fit your real application set and concurrency pattern. Optimisation is the phase most providers skip, because it's ongoing rather than a one-off: autoscale tuned as working patterns shift, images kept lean, storage tier reviewed, and the Azure bill checked against usage on a cycle rather than at the next renewal panic.
When is AVD more cost-effective than Windows 365, and when isn't it?
AVD wins on cost at scale and with variable demand, because pooled multi-session hosts and autoscale mean you stop paying for a seat the moment nobody's using it. A host pool that ramps down overnight and at weekends can genuinely halve its own footprint compared with the hours it covers at peak, and that saving compounds across every user sharing the pool. It also wins outright wherever the workload needs something Windows 365 doesn't offer at all: GPU-backed hosts for CAD or rendering, or fine-grained control over VM sizing that a fixed Cloud PC tier can't match.
Windows 365 wins where headcount is stable and nobody wants infrastructure decisions: a fixed per-user, per-month price with no pool to size, no scaling plan to tune, and a bill that doesn't move with Azure's own pricing changes. The honest crossover point isn't a fixed number of users, it's whether your concurrency is predictable. A team that's logged in nine-to-five, every seat, every day, gets little benefit from AVD's ability to scale down, so the design overhead buys you less than the simplicity Windows 365 offers instead. We size this against your real login data at assessment rather than a rule of thumb, because we've seen the crossover point sit in very different places for two businesses of identical headcount.
What does a genuine AVD cost optimisation checklist cover?
In the order we work through it: autoscale first, because a scaling plan that ramps host pools down out of hours and at weekends is the single biggest lever and it's a configuration change, not new infrastructure. Then VM SKU right-sizing, because pools are routinely left at whatever size the original deployment guide suggested and run under half capacity at peak. Then session density, checking whether users who'd happily share a multi-session host have instead been given dedicated ones out of caution rather than need.
After that: FSLogix storage tier, because premium storage bought out of habit for a workload that never needed the IOPS is a recurring, quiet cost; image hygiene, because a bloated golden image means every host boots and patches slower and takes longer to roll out; and reservations or savings plans, applied last, against your measured baseline rather than your peak, so you're not committing to capacity you don't actually run day to day. Licensing is the final check: AVD access rights bundled into Microsoft 365 E3/E5, Business Premium or a standalone per-user licence are easy to duplicate-purchase without anyone noticing.
How do you size host pools and scaling plans without guessing?
From measured peak concurrent sessions, not headcount. Almost no estate has every user signed in at once, so sizing a pool to total staff bakes in permanent overspend from day one. We look at the actual shape of the working day: when sessions start, when they peak, how long they run, and what proportion of users are ever concurrent, and size the pool to that pattern with headroom rather than to a worst case that rarely happens.
VM SKU and user density then come from the application set that pool actually runs, because a browser-and-Office user and someone running a memory-hungry line-of-business client aren't the same workload and often shouldn't share a host at all. The scaling plan is built around the same data: ramp-up ahead of the real login wave, a peak period sized to actual concurrency rather than headcount, and ramp-down that's aggressive enough to matter but doesn't force users to wait for a host to spin up.
What's genuinely different about managing AVD versus managing Windows 365?
Windows 365 management is close to managing a subscription: assign or remove a Cloud PC licence, and Microsoft handles the underlying host. AVD management is closer to managing infrastructure you happen not to own physically: host pools, scaling plans, image versions, storage performance and network configuration are all decisions you make and keep making, because none of them stay correct on their own as usage changes.
That's not a criticism of AVD, it's the trade for the control and cost efficiency it offers at scale. What it does mean is that AVD management needs an owner, whether that's an internal team with the time to do it properly or a consultancy running it as an ongoing service. An AVD estate left to run itself after go-live is the single most common reason costs and logon times both drift, because nobody revisits the decisions that were correct when they were made and stopped being correct six months later.
FSLogix and storage: what actually goes wrong?
Almost always one of two faults. The first is storage sized for capacity rather than concurrency: FSLogix mounts a per-user profile container at sign-in, so a share that copes fine with a trickle of logins collapses under a simultaneous morning wave, and the fix isn't more storage, it's storage tiered and split for the concurrency you actually see. The second is containers that grow without limit because nobody set exclusions, so Teams and browser caches, OneDrive cached files and search index data end up roaming inside the profile, slowing every mount and steadily filling the share.
We test against a real login wave rather than a single afternoon test session, because one login at 2pm proves nothing about what happens at 8:55 on a Monday. Housekeeping for containers left locked after an ungraceful disconnect is part of the same problem and is usually the difference between profiles that stay fast for months and ones that quietly degrade.
How should applications reach an AVD session host?
Three routes, and a well-run estate uses all of them deliberately rather than defaulting to one. Baked into the golden image, for agents, baseline configuration and anything that genuinely must be present at boot. Installed per host through Intune, for applications that don't need to be in every image build. Attached at sign-in with MSIX App Attach, which expands a package from an SMB share and registers it per user without ever installing it on the host, keeping the image thin and letting different teams get different applications from the same pool.
The skill is in the routing decision, made per application rather than as a blanket policy. Anything that updates often should never live in the image, or every release becomes a rebuild and redeploy across every host pool that uses it. MSIX packaging and App Attach image builds are frequently the same underlying work as our dedicated application packaging service, and estates running both usually save by scoping them together.
Can you take over an AVD environment someone else built?
Yes, and it's one of the most common reasons we're brought in. The trigger is usually the bill, the logon times, or the person who originally designed the environment having moved on with nobody left who knows why it's configured the way it is. We read what's there before changing anything: host pool and scaling plan configuration, image lineage, FSLogix and storage design, licensing, Conditional Access and application delivery.
Plenty of what we find is sound, and we say so rather than rebuilding for the sake of it. What's usually wrong is a handful of early decisions rather than the whole build: a scaling plan that was never turned on, an image that's grown unmanaged for two years, storage that was sized once and never revisited. Fixing those is a fraction of the cost of a rebuild and usually delivers most of the saving.
The credential behind the recommendation
Ryan Mangan, Systech's founder, is a Microsoft MVP, an award renewed specifically for his work in Azure Virtual Desktop and Windows 365, and the author of Mastering Azure Virtual Desktop, published by Packt across two editions. He maintains a public MSIX App Attach reference wiki that other engineers use when they get stuck on exactly the failure modes described on this page.
What that's worth to you is narrow but real. Reference material gets written by people who have already hit the failure modes and had to explain them clearly enough for someone else to fix theirs. The recommendations here aren't a generalist's best guess at a platform they cover alongside a dozen others, they come from the person who documented how AVD goes wrong for a living.
| Cost driver | Azure Virtual Desktop | Windows 365 |
|---|---|---|
| Base pricing model | Per-user access licensing plus the Azure compute, storage and networking you actually consume | Fixed all-in price per user, per month, for a chosen Cloud PC size |
| Cost of an idle seat | Falls away when autoscale removes the host from the pool out of hours | Billed in full regardless of use, other than Frontline's shared licence pool for shift workers |
| Effect of fluctuating headcount | Pool absorbs growth or contraction without a licence-for-licence cost change | Cost moves in lockstep with headcount, seat for seat |
| Where the design effort goes | Host pool sizing, VM SKU, storage tier and scaling plan all need engineering and revisiting | Almost none; pick a Cloud PC size per user |
| GPU / specialist compute | Supported, and often the deciding factor on its own for CAD, design or rendering teams | Not available at any price point |
| Best economics at | Scale, shared or variable usage patterns, and workloads needing custom sizing or GPU | Stable headcount, predictable budgeting, and teams that don't want infrastructure decisions |
Questions we hear a lot
When is AVD more cost-effective than Windows 365, and vice versa?
AVD tends to win on cost once you have enough users to make pooled multi-session hosts and autoscale worthwhile, or wherever demand genuinely varies by time of day or day of week, because you stop paying for capacity nobody's using. Windows 365 tends to win where headcount is stable and predictable, because its fixed per-user price removes the design and tuning overhead AVD needs to realise its saving. The crossover isn't a fixed headcount number, it depends on your actual concurrency pattern, which is exactly what an assessment measures rather than assumes.
What's the real difference between AVD management and Windows 365 management?
Windows 365 management is close to administering a subscription: assign a licence, the Cloud PC exists. AVD management is closer to running infrastructure: host pools, scaling plans, image versions, storage performance and networking are all decisions that need making and then revisiting as usage changes. AVD's extra management overhead is the trade for the cost efficiency and flexibility it offers once you're operating at meaningful scale.
What should a TCO analysis of AVD versus Windows 365 actually include?
More than list price. A genuine TCO comparison needs your measured concurrency pattern (not headcount), the Azure compute, storage and networking AVD would actually consume once autoscaled, the engineering time to design and maintain the AVD environment, and Windows 365's fixed per-seat cost at the Cloud PC size your applications actually need. Comparing sticker prices alone consistently favours whichever platform you compare last.
Is there an AVD cost optimisation checklist you can share?
The order that moves the needle: autoscale scaling plans tuned to your real usage pattern first, since it's the single biggest lever and needs no new infrastructure; then VM SKU right-sizing against measured utilisation; then session density, checking users aren't on dedicated hosts they don't need; then FSLogix storage tier matched to actual concurrency; then image hygiene, so hosts boot and patch faster; and reservations or savings plans applied last, against your measured baseline rather than your peak.
What's the best way to manage both AVD and Windows 365 together?
Treat platform choice as a per-user or per-team decision within one estate rather than an either/or for the whole business, because that's usually the cheapest outcome: stable, predictable teams on Windows 365 Cloud PCs, and variable-demand, GPU or specialist workloads on AVD host pools. Managing both well means the same identity, Conditional Access and Intune policy baseline applied across both, so users and IT see one consistent estate rather than two unrelated platforms that happen to share a sign-in screen.
We already have an AVD environment. Can you just review or fix it, not rebuild it?
Yes, and that's the more common engagement. We assess what's there, host pools, scaling plans, images, storage and licensing, tell you plainly what's sound and what isn't, and fix the specific decisions causing cost or performance problems rather than starting again. Most AVD estates need a handful of things corrected, not a rebuild.
Do you help decide between AVD and Windows 365, or only deliver AVD?
We start every engagement with a straight recommendation, and where Windows 365 is the better fit for some or all of your users we'll say so. We deliver both, and cover Windows 365 consultancy specifically on its own page, so the advice isn't shaped by which platform we'd rather sell you.
AVD consultancy is delivered UK-wide from our office in Brough, East Yorkshire, with on-site support across the county where it helps. We work with businesses in Hull, Leeds, York, Sheffield, Barnsley and Halifax and 6 more Yorkshire towns and cities, and remotely with clients right across the UK.
Get an AVD cost and performance assessment
Book a free Azure Virtual Desktop assessment with a Microsoft MVP renewed specifically for AVD, and get a written TCO analysis of your host pools, storage and licensing before you commit to a build or a rebuild.