Directory · updated August 2026
Ten products scored on the same six criteria with the same weights, published before scoring began. We appear on this list at 7.5, which places us fourth — and we would rather show that than run a directory we always win.
Tell us your size, industry, and what broke. We will name the three worth demoing, including when none are ours.
Strength: Multi-subsidiary and global depth
Watch: Per-seat cost as headcount grows
Strength: Dimensional financial reporting
Watch: Operational modules are thinner
Strength: Consumption pricing, unlimited users
Watch: Partner quality varies widely
Strength: Microsoft estate integration
Watch: Partner-led; experience varies
Strength: Modular breadth at low cost
Watch: US accounting rigour, partner dependency
Strength: Time to value, agentic automation
Watch: Small partner network and talent pool
Strength: Manufacturing and SAP lineage
Watch: Dated UX, partner-dependent
Strength: Familiarity and low cost
Watch: Ceiling arrives fast above $25M
Strength: Clean UX, strong app ecosystem
Watch: Not an ERP; no real multi-entity
Strength: Ubiquity and accountant support
Watch: One entity, no dimensions
Scoring
Weights chosen after the scores are weights chosen to produce a conclusion. These were published first and apply identically to every product in the category, including ours.
Not by picking the highest number. A composite score compresses six dimensions into one figure, and the dimension that matters most to you is almost certainly not weighted the way we weighted it.
What the table is good for is elimination. It tells you which products are built for your size, which are built for your business shape, and which have a known weakness in the area you care about. Getting from ten candidates to three is the job; choosing between three requires scenario demos on your own data.
We score 7.5 against NetSuite at 8.4, Intacct at 8.2, and Acumatica at 8.0. We lose on functional fit because we have no manufacturing, no warehouse management, and thin statutory coverage outside the US. We lose on support and ecosystem because our partner network is small and the talent pool for our product is essentially our own team.
We win on time to value and implementation risk, which are two of the six. That is a real position and it is a narrow one, and a directory that hid it would not be worth publishing.
Your existing estate. If your organisation runs on Microsoft, Business Central’s 7.8 understates it for you considerably. If you are a nonprofit, Intacct’s 8.2 understates it. If you have an excellent Acumatica partner, that is worth more than the gap between several of these rows.
Composite scores cannot encode context. That is a limitation of the format rather than of the scoring, and it is why the selector tool asks four questions before recommending anything.
Nothing. No paid placement, no referral fees, no sponsored positions, and no pre-publication review by any vendor listed. If that ever changes it will be disclosed here before anywhere else. It is also why several of these entries say things the vendors would not choose to publish about themselves.
Enterprise systems — S/4HANA, Oracle Fusion, Workday Financials — because they serve a different market and including them would distort the scoring for everyone else. And products with fewer than roughly five hundred mid-market customers, because we cannot assess ecosystem and support credibly on a thin base.
Exclusions are a judgement and we would rather state ours than present a list that looks exhaustive and is not.
Questions
Tell us your size, industry, and what broke. We will name the three worth demoing properly.