Pronto Xi vs SAP ERP comparison

"Pronto Xi is very user-friendly, and anyone can operate it without difficulty, unlike SAP or AS/400."

"I find Pronto Xi quite robust, fast, and flexible in its use because we can set up any environment and customize it, and it covers a wide range of functions, starting from basic finances such as accounts receivable, payable, down to service projects, manufacturing, plant maintenance, and all customer relationships, providing extensive functionality."

"MDG provides a central location for governance of the creation/updating processes of master data. It allows you to change several fields in the same object. For example, we can change a field on the purchasing view and change another field on an accounting view to the same material at the same time."

"The solution can easily be standardized across processes."

"The features are very useful for finance."

"The initial setup was straightforward."

"The most valuable features are the ease of installation and the MM functionality."

"Finance view across functions is valuable."

"It gives us full control over each change, to the level of the individual field in a master record, including certificates."

"The best thing that SAP ERP has is the extensive coverage of processes for every field and business unit such as procurement, inventory, financials, asset management, plant maintenance, and production. We can cover up to 99.9% processes of our organization, which is the best thing about this solution. It also has a very good capability to integrate with other applications. The security and authorization level of SAP ERP is very high. No other solution can match this level."

"The areas of Pronto Xi that could be improved include its appearance, which is quite outdated, as it does not use modern visualization means of its functionality, and it appears to be from the late 90s."

"There are a lot of things to be developed in Pronto Xi. I believe we need spool files, better control of inventory levels, and improved distribution capabilities."

"Small and medium companies can struggle with the pricing."

"They need to improve a few processes, including transformation, intelligence, governance, modeling, etc."

"It should be less complex. It should also have better integration capability. I am using the ACC version, and in this version, the integration and the communication are very difficult and complicated."

"It's difficult to code; structured language is difficult."

"The speed to build and the speed to deliver could be better."

"License fees are too high."

"There are a lot of manual tasks that are used by a lot of people, so it is a very good candidate for RPA."

"The challenge with SAP is that they move very fast to different products and buy different products. It requires significant investment and many skills to catch up because all of these have different sets of technology."

"My company makes early payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product. There are no additional costs apart from the charges paid toward the subscription-based license offered by SAP."

"The solution has moved from a licensing model to a rights-based, subscription model in the cloud."

"The solution is expensive so I rate cost a five out of ten."

"SAP is a bit on the costly side, but they also provide support and other things. We are paying for licenses and the use of the cloud."

"The product has high pricing."

"There are licensing costs."

"When we talk about pricing it is expensive. On a scale of one to ten, it would rank a two. There are no additional fees but the user licenses are high."

"The pricing is based on the license per user, which I think makes the solution a bit costly...Basically, the prices of the solution are high, and we don't have that much revenue."