Azure AZ-305 exam guide covering governance, storage, resilience, networking, and architecture decisions.
This guide targets AZ-305: Designing Microsoft Azure Infrastructure Solutions, Microsoft’s Azure architecture-design exam for candidates who need to justify service selection under security, governance, resilience, networking, performance, and operational constraints. On April 13, 2026, Microsoft Learn says the English-language version of the exam will be updated on April 17, 2026, and the published study guide already shows the post-update skill map. This guide follows that published four-domain structure. If your exam appointment is before April 17, 2026, re-check the live Microsoft Learn study guide before relying on any detailed domain breakdown here.
Architecture trade-off: The design choice between options that each satisfy part of the requirement but differ in cost, operational burden, resilience, security posture, or performance.
Landing zone: A standardized Azure environment design for subscriptions, networking, identity, governance, and platform controls.
| Exam fact | Current official signal |
|---|---|
| Exam code | AZ-305 |
| Official exam name | Designing Microsoft Azure Infrastructure Solutions |
| Passing score | 700 |
| Retirement date | none listed |
| Certification path | part of Microsoft Certified: Azure Solutions Architect Expert |
| Certification prerequisite | Microsoft still says you must hold Azure Administrator Associate to earn the expert certification |
| Update note | English exam updates on April 17, 2026 |
AZ-305 is not a product-recall exam. Strong answers usually begin with the business constraint that matters most, then choose the simplest Azure-managed design that satisfies it. The trap is often not picking a totally wrong service. The trap is picking a design that is more complex, less governable, or less aligned with the requirement than the better option.
The current Microsoft study guide published for the April 17, 2026 update breaks AZ-305 into four domains. This guide follows that map directly.
| Skill area | Weight | Chapter | Start here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design identity, governance, and monitoring solutions | 25-30% | 1. Identity, Governance and Monitoring | 1.1 Logging, Monitoring and Log Routing, 1.2 Authentication, Authorization and Secrets, 1.3 Governance Scope, Compliance and Identity Governance |
| Design data storage solutions | 20-25% | 2. Data Storage Solutions | 2.1 Relational Data Service Fit and Scalability, 2.2 Semi-Structured, Unstructured and Durability Choices, 2.3 Data Integration and Analysis Architecture |
| Design business continuity solutions | 15-20% | 3. Business Continuity Solutions | 3.1 Backup, Disaster Recovery and Recovery Objectives, 3.2 High Availability for Compute and Data |
| Design infrastructure solutions | 30-35% | 4. Infrastructure Solutions | 4.1 Compute Service Fit for Workloads, 4.2 Application Architecture, Messaging and Configuration, 4.3 Migration Strategy for Apps, Data and Platforms, 4.4 Network Connectivity, Security and Routing |
flowchart LR
A["1. Governance and monitoring"] --> B["2. Data storage design"]
B --> C["3. Continuity targets and recovery design"]
C --> D["4. Compute, app architecture, migrations, and networking"]
D --> E["Cheat sheet, glossary, FAQ, and live Microsoft checks"]
| Failure pattern | Better instinct |
|---|---|
| solving for maximum complexity instead of the simplest viable design | prefer the least operationally heavy managed pattern that still satisfies the constraints |
| mixing RBAC, Policy, tags, locks, and scope hierarchy into one blur | classify authorization, governance, metadata, and protection as separate control types |
| using backup to answer a strict low-downtime requirement | map the question to RTO / RPO first, then decide whether restore, failover, or HA is actually required |
| choosing data platforms by familiarity instead of workload shape | decide relational, document, object, file, or analytics need first |
| adding private access without designing DNS and routing | private access changes name resolution and network path, not just the endpoint type |
| If you are coming from… | Bias your review toward… |
|---|---|
| AZ-104 or admin-heavy background | architecture trade-offs, managed-vs-self-managed choices, and continuity design |
| developer or app-platform background | governance scope, private connectivity, landing zones, and observability routing |
| infrastructure and networking background | data-platform fit, application architecture, and migration trade-offs |