When support ends, risk does not just increase; it becomes harder to control. If you are still on SQL Server 2016, the question is no longer “Is this dangerous?” It is, “How much longer can you afford to delay?”
Let us break down what that delay is really costing you.
Microsoft offers a fallback for those who are not ready to upgrade: Extended Security Updates. But ESUs come with a catch several in fact.
ESUs are not a strategy. They are a bill to buy time.
Running outdated systems quietly drains your team’s time and energy. You need more manual patching, more scripting, and more support from your senior DBAs, all for a system that is steadily falling behind.
You are not just spending money. You are spending hours you will never get back.
Insurers are not looking the other way anymore.
In short, if something goes wrong, you are on the hook and your coverage may not save you.
Here is what the numbers often look like over three years:
Option | Three-Year Cost Estimate | Risk Level | IT Burden | Compliance Fit |
---|---|---|---|---|
Stay on SQL Server 2016 | Low license cost, high risk | Very High | High | Fails most frameworks |
Use ESUs | $8K–$10K/server/year | Moderate | High | Temporarily compliant |
Upgrade to SQL Server 2022 | One-time licensing + labor | Low | Medium | Strong compliance base |
Migrate to Azure SQL | Pay-as-you-go, variable cost | Low | Low | Native compliance tools |
Note: These are estimates. Actual cost depends on server count, ESU licensing tier, hardware age, and migration complexity.
This table is not about saving pennies. It is about deciding whether you want your IT budget to go toward patching risk or building something you can rely on.
Try answering these:
Even rough estimates are usually enough to show this: doing nothing is no longer the cheapest option.