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

Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central vs SYSPRO comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Microsoft Dynamics 365 Busi...
Ranking in ERP
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
67
Ranking in other categories
Activity Based Costing Software (1st)
SYSPRO
Ranking in ERP
31st
Average Rating
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the ERP category, the mindshare of Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central is 4.1%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SYSPRO is 1.0%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
ERP Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central4.1%
SYSPRO1.0%
Other94.9%
ERP
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2746122 - PeerSpot reviewer
Automation Engineer
Integrations Help Bring Efficiency while Documentation Needs Improvement
When I started working with Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, I was new and didn't know what ERP was or its purpose, but I was eager to learn more each day. The system can become overwhelmed because you cannot control the number of integrations, and our team struggled to manage the numerous integrations we had. More documentation is needed on how to use Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central and its capabilities. From a technical perspective, it was challenging because understanding the system requires familiarity with financial sectors. Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central could benefit from more AI integration. Learning the application was challenging as there was much to understand about accounts payable, receivable, accounting, and general ledger.
reviewer1413297 - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Director at a consultancy with 11-50 employees
A great choice for straight manufacturing, but not suitable for complex manufacturing models
SYSPRO at the moment is lacking on the project side. There's a module called Projects and Contracts, and it's a poorly designed module. One of my clients is a project-based organization, and they're finding it extremely difficult to manage their business using SYSPRO, to the point that they're looking at alternative solutions. The Projects and Contracts module is not a very useful tool. It does project accounting reasonably well, but in terms of putting in proper structures, like a work breakdown structure and so forth, it's actually quite poor. Their design or their architecture for the Projects module isn't good enough. They need to redesign it and redevelop it. They have made improvements. However, the problem is that if you're building on a bad foundation, then your building isn't going to be very strong. That's principally their problem. Any heavy equipment company would have a requirement to keep their equipment available for production. In that sense, SYSPRO has no maintenance management functionality. There's also no functionality for field services management. These two functionalities are critical for places like mines or for heavy equipment manufacturers who service the aftermarket and so forth. From a product perspective, this obviously isn't a good place to be because they are sort of taking themselves out of the market for quite a number of industries. They are constrained to manufacturing and distribution.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central is its ease of use, data customization, and smooth integration."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Dynamics NAV is its simplicity of accounting and receiving reports. The solution is similar to Microsoft Excel, and that similarity is good. All the functions of Microsoft Dynamics are user-friendly."
"It is a stable solution."
"The solution is easy to use, flexible, and customizable."
"I am impressed with the tool's user authentication, compatibility , and policies."
"The security feature, particularly the encryption, which still builds sensitivity, is one of the most valuable features."
"This is readily available and affordable, as well as user-friendly and simple to use in my opinion."
"I have found the flexibility to be very valuable. It's highly flexible, and at least for us, it has been effective. It is also highly functional."
"The Financial Accounting module, in general, is quite good. It is quite simple but powerful. Similarly, the Manufacturing functionality, including a multiple level bill of materials, is also quite useful."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in terms of compatibility."
"The solution's event management can be improved."
"I would like a more modular and user-friendly interface."
"The product should improve work optimization."
"There is a book for Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central explaining how to use it. But it is not easy to use, and it is not easy to learn."
"I think Microsoft should improve on the process of how the user decides on a business workflow. For example, there may be some kind of drag-and-drop interface that lets us decide for ourselves how to develop the business workflows that fit our purpose."
"The solution is stable, but it could improve."
"Customization and costs could be improved."
"SYSPRO at the moment is lacking on the project side. There's a module called Projects and Contracts, and it's a poorly designed module. One of my clients is a project-based organization, and they're finding it extremely difficult to manage their business using SYSPRO, to the point that they're looking at alternative solutions. The Projects and Contracts module is not a very useful tool. It does project accounting reasonably well, but in terms of putting in proper structures, like a work breakdown structure and so forth, it's actually quite poor. Their design or their architecture for the Projects module isn't good enough. They need to redesign it and redevelop it. They have made improvements. However, the problem is that if you're building on a bad foundation, then your building isn't going to be very strong. That's principally their problem. Any heavy equipment company would have a requirement to keep their equipment available for production. In that sense, SYSPRO has no maintenance management functionality. There's also no functionality for field services management. These two functionalities are critical for places like mines or for heavy equipment manufacturers who service the aftermarket and so forth. From a product perspective, this obviously isn't a good place to be because they are sort of taking themselves out of the market for quite a number of industries. They are constrained to manufacturing and distribution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have a perpetual license to use Microsoft Dynamics NAV."
"The solution is on the cloud and they provide 50 gigabytes of free space on their Microsoft Drive. The reason for this is that Microsoft is requiring you to upgrade all of your systems to Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central in order to effectively use the cloud. This means that if you are currently using a different version of Microsoft for a specific purpose that does not require this solution, it can be frustrating to have to spend money to upgrade to this solution just for the purpose of syncing with the cloud. Additionally, even if you do purchase Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, there can still be issues with syncing between the on-premise and cloud clients. This can be especially frustrating as the cloud storage is not free and can be difficult to access even after purchasing."
"I think the pricing is the best; it's cost effective for sure."
"The solution is a little bit expensive."
"There is an annual cost of using Microsoft Dynamics NAV. The cost is approximately 140,000 INR."
"Its licensing is yearly. In addition to the licensing cost, there is the cost of hosting on Azure."
"Microsoft Dynamics NAV has a pay-as-you-use payment model."
"The deployment cost us $70,000 and we pay around $18,000 annually for support, which we find to be expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ERP solutions are best for your needs.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
University
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business40
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise19
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Dynamics NAV?
I don't have specific information about the pricing of Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central. However, it was very costly due to the numerous integrations we had.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Dynamics NAV?
A point of sale solution is still lacking in the retail industry. A basic point of sale would help a great deal because there are certain requirements where Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Dynamics NAV, MS Dynamics NAV
No data available
 

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
Arctic Manufacturing
Find out what your peers are saying about SAP, Oracle, Microsoft and others in ERP. Updated: January 2026.
881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.