Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central vs QAD Enterprise Applications comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Microsoft Dynamics 365 Busi...
Ranking in Activity Based Costing Software
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
63
Ranking in other categories
ERP (3rd)
QAD Enterprise Applications
Ranking in Activity Based Costing Software
13th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Demand Management (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Activity Based Costing Software category, the mindshare of Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central is 19.8%, up from 15.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of QAD Enterprise Applications is 0.5%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Activity Based Costing Software
 

Featured Reviews

StefaanVandesompele - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides end-to-end accounting and finance module at reasonable pricing
365 Business Central integrates with Office 365 to streamline the invoice approval process. This allows businesses to manage and approve invoices efficiently within a unified system. Our organization plans to transition to the Dynamics 365 environment, where various functions will be centralized. We will consolidate everything into one system instead of maintaining multiple databases for each country with local data. Dynamics 365 is fully integrated, which should address many of our challenges when we migrate to this new environment. We look forward to seeing how it performs in practice. The project is progressing well overall, though integrating it with other tools and ensuring Dynamics 365 operates smoothly can be challenging. Dynamics 365 is user-friendly and effective. However, a deeper understanding of its technical capabilities and architecture might be necessary to optimize its use fully. The software landscape is evolving, and achieving the best reporting and functionality with just a click can be complex. A clear vision of what you want to achieve with Dynamics 365 is essential. Proper preparation and configuration are crucial to achieving the desired outcomes. This principle applies not only to Dynamics 365 but to all software packages. Understanding the system's flexibility and adaptability based on your specific business needs is key to its successful implementation. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Use QAD Enterprise Applications?
Share your opinion
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Activity Based Costing Software solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
6%
Government
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Microsoft Dynamics NAV?
The platform offers a robust and comprehensive cycle for supply chain and inventory management, with features like minimum and maximum settings, dynamic monitoring of inventory levels, and integrat...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Dynamics NAV?
Implementing localizations when we use the system for multiple countries can be quite complex. There isn't a single solution available for all countries, and managing these localizations can be cha...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Dynamics NAV, MS Dynamics NAV
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Harris Farm Markets, Mister Spex GmbH, Bounce Foods, Eurofin Services SA, Medica Medizintechnik, Associated Gaskets, Onduline, Sitka Surfboard Corporation, World Animal Protection
Vitatech
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle, Microsoft, NetSuite and others in Activity Based Costing Software. Updated: December 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.