We performed a comparison between Microsoft Dynamics AX and SAP S/4HANA based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ERP solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One of the valuable features of the solution is how easy it is to use."
"The product's most valuable features are its day-to-day operations, Power BI-driven workspaces, and homepage."
"It's scalable."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Dynamics AX is material planning."
"The performance is good."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Dynamics AX are field services and the vendor collaboration portal. Both of the features are very good."
"This solution's most valuable feature is its workflow for purchase orders and inventory."
"It is easy to use, and it has a great UI. It has very well-structured modules. In terms of setup and configuration, they're logically placed, which makes it easy for any user to pick up information and learn more about the system, rather than just be plain key users of that business operating system."
"I have been using SAP for more than 13 years and the new SAP S4HANA was not only a simple upgrade, they have made a lot of improvements. They have simplified a lot of the functions, the all-new interface gives users a better experience. The database itself is quite efficient in nature and it provides effective data queries. It is a good upgrade from the previous version of SAP R/3."
"S/4HANA offers a lot of additional capability with respect to performance due to its in-built architecture for many functions including finance, production, quality, manufacturing, inventory or sales distribution and logistics."
"SAP S4HANA is a robust solution."
"The key modules that I find most valuable are material management (MM), financial accounting and controlling (FICO), and human resources (HR)."
"It is a very powerful, highly customizable tool."
"The performance of the solution is excellent."
"It's helped with business aspects and improved material planning and RMA processes."
"The solution makes its use and the management of our infrastructure easy."
"It needs better financials and reporting from the system, not through Excel."
"The product is standardised across industries so it is not a good fit for all types of sectors."
"The integration could improve for the future."
"I sometimes put in wrong data that needs correction, but I cannot change it or approve it without withdrawing it. It will then take time for me to go back in and edit it."
"The tool's setup phase and pricing are areas with certain concerns where improvements are required."
"It could be more scalable and stable. It would also be better if the interface were more integrated with the Microsoft ecosystem because 2012 is not really integrated."
"The user interface could be better."
"Change management could be better."
"The customer service and support are average. There is room for improvement in response time."
"We found that the implementing partners themselves are struggling with S4HANA's features. It's not an exact translation of the older ECC, so SAP has taken a new route to do things with S4HANA. Maybe it's a good product, but the implementing partners also like to have an in-depth understanding of the full feature set the product offers."
"The integration could be made a little simpler in terms of design and implementation."
"We would like to see more DevOps capabilities in the future."
"The cost of the solution is quite high. It needs to be adjusted."
"The two things that need to be improved are price and customization."
"An area for improvement would be integration with different kinds of legacies. In the next release, I would like the product to be prepared for blockchain technology and the best way to communicate with social networking."
"The procure-to-pay solution in the Contract Management angle could be better. If you look at it on Ariba, the Contract Management Life Cycle for Ariba is more robust. You can create documentation, SLAs, and NDAs. Apart from the procurement aspect of the contract, you have the legal side, but Ariba cannot do that. From what I've seen, the features of the procure-to-pay model in S/4HANA and their Contract Life Cycle Management side primarily focus on the procurement side. I believe it would be good if this solution could handle a part of the legal side. They will incorporate Extended Warehouse Management and Transportation Management into the S/4HANA cloud. Most big companies that use a solution like S/4HANA have a legal department within the organization. Suppose they can incorporate that to be in S/4HANA suites; I think it'll be good. It will be just like what we have with Transportation Management and Extended Warehouse Management. The user interface could be better. They have too much information on the interface, and our customers still keep complaining that it looks complex. Even though many things have changed, they still complain that the interface or the screen they see is a bit complex. It's only when they see the Fiori interface that their mind becomes a bit calm."
Microsoft Dynamics AX is ranked 6th in ERP with 52 reviews while SAP S/4HANA is ranked 2nd in ERP with 75 reviews. Microsoft Dynamics AX is rated 7.6, while SAP S/4HANA is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Dynamics AX writes "A stable product that offers excellent ROI and reliable technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP S/4HANA writes "The solution is highly scalable, with solid performance and integration". Microsoft Dynamics AX is most compared with SAP ERP, Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, Oracle E-Business Suite, Oracle Fusion Cloud ERP and Microsoft Dynamics GP, whereas SAP S/4HANA is most compared with SAP ERP, SAP Business One, Oracle Fusion Cloud ERP, Oracle E-Business Suite and Anaplan. See our Microsoft Dynamics AX vs. SAP S/4HANA report.
See our list of best ERP vendors.
We monitor all ERP reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.