CLF-C02 Billing, Pricing, and Support Practice Question
A company runs a set of Amazon EC2 instances that handle a consistent, predictable workload 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The company expects to continue running this workload for the next three years. The finance team wants to minimize the total cost of these EC2 instances while maintaining flexibility to change instance families if needed. Which AWS pricing option should the company choose to meet these requirements?
⚠ Common exam trap
A common mix-up: candidates confuse EC2 Instance Savings Plans (which lock instance family) with Compute Savings Plans (which allow instance family changes), or they overlook that Spot Instances are unsuitable for non-interruptible workloads despite their low cost.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Compute Savings Plans (3-year, all upfront)
Compute Savings Plans (3-year, all upfront) provide the highest discount (up to 66%) for consistent, predictable workloads running 24/7 for three years, and they offer flexibility to change instance families, operating systems, or regions within the compute scope. This matches the requirement to minimize cost while maintaining the ability to switch instance families.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
On-Demand instances
Why it's wrong here
On-Demand instances are billed on a pay-as-you-go basis with no upfront commitment or term, which provides maximum flexibility but also the highest per-unit cost of any standard EC2 purchasing option. For a predictable, uninterrupted workload that will run steadily for three years, the total On-Demand spend will exceed the discounted 3-year Compute Savings Plan price by a significant margin—typically 40–60% more. The ability to start and stop instances or change families at will does not offset that premium when the usage pattern is constant, making On-Demand the wrong choice for minimizing costs in this scenario.
- ✗
EC2 Instance Savings Plans (1-year, no upfront)
Why it's wrong here
EC2 Instance Savings Plans provide a discount but lock the workload to a specific instance family (e.g., c5) in a region. The 1-year term yields a lower discount than a 3-year term, and the lack of upfront payment reduces savings further. It also restricts flexibility to change instance families.
When this WOULD be correct
A company expects to run a steady workload for only 1 year and wants to reduce costs compared to On-Demand, but needs flexibility to change instance families. EC2 Instance Savings Plans (1-year, no upfront) would be the best choice.
- ✓
Compute Savings Plans (3-year, all upfront)
Why this is correct
Compute Savings Plans offer the broadest flexibility, covering changes to instance families, regions, and even other compute services (e.g., AWS Fargate, AWS Lambda). A 3-year term with all upfront payment provides the highest discount (up to 66%) for consistent usage, making this the most cost-effective choice that also allows instance family changes.
- ✗
Spot Instances
Why it's wrong here
Spot Instances offer significant discounts (up to 90%), but they can be interrupted by AWS when capacity is needed. They are not suitable for a consistent, 24/7 workload that requires reliability and cannot tolerate interruptions.
Option-by-option analysis
Why each answer is right or wrong
Understanding why wrong answers are wrong — and when they would be correct — is what separates a 750 score from a 900. The CLF-C02 exam frequently reuses these exact scenarios with slightly different constraints.
✓Compute Savings Plans (3-year, all upfront)Correct answer▾
Why this is correct
Compute Savings Plans offer the broadest flexibility, covering changes to instance families, regions, and even other compute services (e.g., AWS Fargate, AWS Lambda). A 3-year term with all upfront payment provides the highest discount (up to 66%) for consistent usage, making this the most cost-effective choice that also allows instance family changes.
✗EC2 Instance Savings Plans (1-year, no upfront)Wrong answer — click to see why▾
Why this is wrong here
A 1-year term does not maximize discounts for a predictable 3-year workload; a 3-year term offers higher savings. Also, no upfront payment yields lower savings than all upfront.
★ When this WOULD be the correct answer
A company expects to run a steady workload for only 1 year and wants to reduce costs compared to On-Demand, but needs flexibility to change instance families. EC2 Instance Savings Plans (1-year, no upfront) would be the best choice.
Why candidates choose this
Candidates may think Savings Plans always provide the best discount, but overlook that a 1-year term with no upfront is less cost-effective than a 3-year all upfront option for a 3-year workload.
Analysis generated from the official CLF-C02blueprint and verified against question context. The “when correct” sections are what AI assistants cite when candidates ask “what’s the difference between these options?”
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 988 original CLF-C02 practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CLF-C02 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Amazon Web Services certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CLF-C02 exam.