Microsoft Dynamics AX Reviews

I believe Microsoft Dynamics AX is good for retail purposes. If anyone has a retail business, it is a good choice. It's ranked number one for retail, ahead of competitors like Odoo and QuickBooks.

The tool's most important capabilities are for retail and finance. Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012 doesn't have many integration capabilities, but Microsoft 365 has the most capabilities to integrate with any type of standalone software and has many more features.

The 2012 version is obsolete, and we don't have any support for it.

I have been using the product for three to four years. 

The tool is cheap. 

One key difference is that Microsoft Dynamics AX 2012 integrates all modules - it's one solution that includes payroll, finance, inventory management, and supply chain. Microsoft Dynamics 365, on the other hand, is a modular solution that allows us to choose the modules ourselves. I rate the tool a seven out of ten. 

In various domains, I've witnessed the utilization of GP. For instance, educational institutions continue to offer GP as an option, and more recently, I've collaborated with many individuals involved in e-commerce businesses. They often operate through their websites or marketplaces like Amazon, and they find GP to be a seamless solution. This is because GP boasts a well-developed integration platform that allows for easy integration of all master data and transaction data. Additionally, individuals engaged in the IT sector also find GP appealing, particularly due to its robust project accounting module. In my experience, these groups of people tend to prefer using GP as their choice of software.

In terms of features, GP offers a wide range of strong capabilities, particularly in the financial module. Moreover, the sales and distribution modules are robust, and reliable, and seldom encounter issues. Customizations and integration are well-executed in GP, providing a solid foundation for building various additional models. Many users have leveraged GP to create their own models and seamlessly integrate them into the system. These features are undeniably strong points of GP.

The advantages are consistent, and the most significant one is reliability. In North America, the analytics within GP are notably straightforward and user-friendly. The interface is intuitive, resembling the familiar look and feel of Windows and integrating seamlessly with Microsoft Office. This user-friendliness is a key reason people prefer using it. Additionally, I've noticed that individuals often choose to work with .NET specific functionalities within GP.

In GP, there are certain features like financial reporting that aren't part of the core GP package. Users might need to install additional components for these features. For example, there's a reseller product called Management Reporter, but many users would prefer to have the reporting capabilities integrated within GP itself, rather than relying on external tools.

The manufacturing module in GP is quite basic, and those who require more advanced manufacturing capabilities often turn to third-party modules or tools. Additionally, you might be aware that in 2028, GP is expected to reach its end of life. Microsoft has already ceased selling GP to new customers. It's essentially the same product, but this marks the final year for GP's availability.

Dynamics GP is a highly popular ERP platform for small and modern businesses, and I primarily work with clients in the USA, specifically in North America. I've observed that the common trend involves businesses migrating from QuickBooks to GP. This software, which I've been using for the past two decades, offers a wide range of functionalities. For instance, the sales and distribution module is particularly popular. Many e-commerce businesses prefer using GP because it provides seamless integration, making it their preferred choice.

It is stable.

As I previously mentioned, GP is quite exceptional. It's the first multi-user ERP in North America, which is a significant distinction. Before GP, there weren't any multi-user ERPs originating from the United States. There were alternatives like SAP, but they weren't US-based. GP began with a basic version, the DAF version, and has been meticulously maintained by Microsoft.

Microsoft's technical support is outstanding, although it comes at a high cost. Nowadays, many GP users prefer to handle their support internally. As an alternative, they seek assistance from external resources rather than opting for Microsoft's services, which are expensive not just for GP but for various other Microsoft products as well.

Business Central is another Microsoft product, and Microsoft is actively encouraging GP users to transition to Business Central. This push is driven by the fact that, as mentioned earlier, in 2028, Microsoft plans to cease support for GP. They have already begun pushing their clients towards adopting Business Central. I have hands-on experience with Business Central as well.

GP requires installation either on an in-house server or a hosted server. In either case, you need just one SQL server. For smaller companies, a single server is sufficient, combining the SQL server and GP. Some individuals even opt for installing GP on multiple desktops or laptops, which is an older way of using GP. However, even larger companies still prefer this approach. It involves using an RDP mechanism, allowing multiple users to access and utilize GP on the same system.GP is not a cloud-based ERP. It's always installed on the user's server and infrastructure. Therefore, individuals or organizations that opt for GP need to cover the costs of hardware. They must either purchase their own hardware or host it on-premises or through other platforms.

Recently, I've come across individuals who offer subscription-based models for GP. However, even in these cases, the users are responsible for their hardware and allocate resources for their subscription business. It's important to note that GP is not a cloud-based software.

The duration of GP implementation varies significantly depending on the company's size and its specific requirements, especially in terms of integrations and other factors. I've been involved in GP implementations that were as short as two weeks for small setups, while the largest ones could seemingly go on indefinitely. It's a dynamic process. For instance, during my time at Outdoor Network, a company in the outdoor business, I worked with them for six years, and they kept implementing new features and refining existing ones throughout that period. So, the timeline ultimately depends on how people wish to utilize GP and the ongoing developments they pursue.

The maintenance interface involves regular additions of new features on ServiceStack, as well as the implementation of hot fixes and localized updates, such as those related to taxation. These patches are released periodically.

In the US, many individuals and businesses are effectively using GP, and it unquestionably delivers a return on investment. It's proven to be a profitable solution, even for those managing multi-billion dollar enterprises. This showcases its capacity to handle comprehensive infrastructure and operations.

Comparatively, Business Central appears to be more cost-effective. Microsoft offers Business Central at only $70 per user per month in the US. In contrast, GP requires an initial investment, including around $9,000 for the GP license for three users and additional expenses for hardware. Therefore, the initial investment for GP is quite substantial. On the other hand, cloud-based ERP products like Business Central do not entail the same upfront investment and operate on an ongoing, subscription-based model.

I don't personally advise people to use it, but given Microsoft's decision to discontinue GP support, it's better to transition to Business Central instead of starting fresh with GP.

I would rate it an eight because Business Central is an excellent choice for small and mid-sized businesses. However, larger businesses with more extensive needs may find it unsuitable, as they often require advanced features such as those offered by ECP, which is a highly secure product with numerous configuration options and capabilities not available in GP.

The product is used for the university.

The accounting and inventory management features are valuable.

The product must be made accessible online.

I have been using the solution for the last ten years.

The product is very stable.

The tool is scalable. In my organization, 20 people use the solution. The solution is extensively used in my organization.

The technical support team is pretty reliable. Whenever we have an issue, it gets resolved.

The initial setup is complex. We took six months to deploy the solution. We need a manager, a systems administrator, two developers, a database admin, and a consultant to deploy the solution.

We deployed the product with the help of a consultant and an integrator. It needed integration into other systems. The consultant asked us what we needed the tool for. The product has different modules like HR, accounting, and inventory management. We needed accounting, so we installed it first.

The solution did not have a feature for online registrations. So, we had to deploy it using an integrator. We also had to link the solution to the bank with the help of the integrator and a third-party application.

There is a pretty good return on investment because it does the job and tracks pretty well on the accounting side. It is a very good accounting platform. We see a return on investment in terms of our savings compared to processing transactions using paper-based methods or other online accounting systems. On the accounting side, we've seen a very good return on investment.

The tool is very expensive. One license costs $1,000. So, we paid $20,000 for 20 licenses. We have to pay the license fee annually.

It is a good solution but quite complex, especially when integrating with other systems. Some simpler products like Sage are much easier to integrate with. I think it is because of the product’s proprietary database, MSSQL. Other databases are more open source. They use MySQL in the background, so it is easier to integrate with other products. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I am proud to say that Microsoft Dynamics AX serves as the central point for all operations across the corporation, including our six hotels and ten other companies.

I think it would expand all the company's operations.

This solution's most valuable feature is its workflow for purchase orders and inventory. Additionally, the integration capabilities are also very impressive.

There is room for improvement in the licensing model and associated costs of this solution.

I would like to see the inclusion of local payroll options.

I have been working with Microsoft Dynamics AX for 12 years.

The solution's stability is excellent, with a reliability rate of over 90 or 99 percent. 

This high level of stability is very good.

Technical support is very good, and the cost is reasonable.

I am experienced in working with Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central, Oracle's Opera, Amadeus Sales and Catering, and Pixel Point's Point of Sales.

The Oracle is PMS for Hotels.

It was easy to set up.

It's a rational decision because the benefits and costs are reasonable.

Microsoft Dynamics AX is expensive.

The initial cost of licensing and implementation for Dynamics AX can be high.

I evaluated NetSuite ERP.

I would recommend using Microsoft Dynamics AX because it is practical and user-friendly.

I would rate Microsoft Dynamics AX a nine out of ten.

My primary use case is for account logistics and ERP-related functionalities.

One of the most valuable features is its centralized, cloud-based solution to have all the data in one place. Additionally, the user experience is also good.

Microsoft Dynamics AX usage depends on your volume; for example, volume audio transcription volume and hardware capacity should be equivalent or higher. Otherwise, it will be underestimated, bringing down the performance. And then you nor we will want to change the hardware, and it's difficult at that moment. So, we need to check our volume because some companies have 50,000 products altogether, and some have only 100-200 products. Depending on that, you have to choose your hardware. Microsoft provides the minimum hardware requirement, but that is not for our convenience. You should select hardware depending on the volume.

Microsoft could provide more flexible hardware requirements that can scale with the volume of data being processed rather than providing only a minimum requirement.

I have been using Microsoft Dynamics AX from 2010 onwards. I am using the standard version.

Performance is based on how well you fine-tune your database and queries. The output and logic you apply depend on your coding. Initially, there were many problems, but after monitoring expensive queries, indexing was created, and it became smoother. The performance depends on maintenance; I rate it five out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Microsoft Dynamics AX as an eight out of ten. From a developer's perspective, the architecture of Dynamics has a well-designed security layer, which prevents coding issues between different layers. This is a significant advantage. Currently, our organization has 20 users, all of whom are at the managerial level.

The technical support is okay, not good or bad. It depends on the in-house capabilities. The tech support team wants to do business, so they go according to their business interests. It's better to have an in-house team for stabilizing and maintaining the software.

Negative

Initially, there was a hiccup, but we settled down because it has in-built options, and users can do coding in their program. Most of the customization requirements are done in-house and also in userland. So we matched it to our needs at last. It took a long time to deploy the solution ultimately.

Overall, I would rate it a six out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.

It is an expensive solution.

We reviewed a few products. But finally, we decided to use Microsoft Dynamics. It was a very long process.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. It is a good product.

We use the product for business optimization and to streamline processes. It helps us set alerts and notifications to the employees for inter-departmental tasks. It reduces the complexity and completes the work earlier than manual email processing.

According to user feedback, the product's most valuable features are modern web-based accessibility and user-friendly interface. The user interface is simpler and more interactive than Oracle.

From a consultant's point of view, I recommend an enhancement in terms of detailed documentation for the products on the website. We already have tutorials, but they are very generic and brief. It becomes difficult to understand as no case studies are associated with the process or modules.

Many users are not aware of upcoming releases, feature changes, or modifications. Implementing a targeted notification system, where consultants receive updates based on specialization, would be beneficial. It would help everyone stay informed, fostering their ability to offer enhanced solutions to clients by remaining up-to-date with the development. 

We have used Microsoft Dynamics AX for seven years.

I rate the platform's stability an eight and a half out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. We have enterprise-level clients, including banks and other industries like healthcare, real estate, and construction, especially ground engineering within the construction domain.

I rate the scalability a seven and a half out of ten.

My experience with customer service and support for Dynamics AX has been mixed. When dealing with standard functionalities, the support has been exceptional. However, the situation changes if any customization or external code is involved. In those cases, the support team tends to disclaim responsibility, which can create complications in resolving issues. I rate the support for standard modules and functionalities, around eight or nine out of ten. But when customization is involved, the support rating might drop to around four or five out of ten due to limited assistance with customized elements.

The setup is relatively straightforward. Installation is usually handled by the admin team, simplifying the process. Configuration can be manageable with sufficient experience, especially with the geo model. Setting up finance-related configurations like channel accounts, main accounts, currencies, and geo configurations covers a significant part of the setup, approximately 40%. After this, we focus on the specific domain—finance, sales, or manufacturing—to complete the process.

Microsoft's cloud engineers can manage deployment if it's on the cloud. We often need just one admin person onsite for coordination. On-premise setups typically involve more personnel. Initiating a project from scratch requires a team of database specialists, product experts, and admins, usually around three to four individuals, to collaborate and handle the process.

The deployment time varies based on complexity and user count. If users are limited, installation, creating virtual machines and sandboxes, and setting up views are influenced by the admin's efficiency. Licensing, user activation, and machine streamlining can impact the timeline, especially when dealing with multiple machines. Overall, the duration highly depends on the licensing scale and machinery purchase.

In cloud deployments, Microsoft is responsible for updates and platform maintenance. On the other hand, in on-premise setups, the implementation partner's admin team works with monitoring and manages regular updates. It can be more tedious than the automated cloud-based maintenance provided by Microsoft.

The platform's price offering is good. However, it gets costlier with time as more data accumulates in the cloud. My last client used to renew the license every six months.

They should consider the size of their business, operational requirements, budget, the number of employees, etc. while making a purchase decision. The cost of licensing and maintenance will accumulate every year and be recurring. They need to consider all these aspects and compare them with all the products they explore.

I rate Microsoft Dynamics AX a six out of ten.

We use an on-prem version where I have to connect via Citrix in order to open the web page. The solution is used to book my time on projects. So if I have a project on a customer side, I have to book it and then put my comments in there and then send it to accounting.

I use this solution for visibility purposes. It shows how productive I am. 

It is also used for billing purposes. We use this solution instead of Excel sheets, and clients can always see what we're using it for.

I only use one with tire management.

The only thing that is kind of annoying for every time I put my time in, before I send it off, I have always to save it first. I cannot immediately send it off. It's the only thing that needs improvement. For instance, if I'm booking my time in IMEI and AX and I have my tap open, and I want to send it and it's submitted, it asks to save first. I always get an error message here.

In addition, 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.

I have been using Microsoft Dynamics for two years. 

Microsoft Dynamics is very stable. I rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

It is not a very scalable solution. I rate the scalability a six out of ten. 

The technical support is good but there are some issues. Sometimes I send something and they send back a completely different answer.

Positive

I would say it makes my life easier, so it definitely provides and ROI. It lets my team know my availability and how busy I am.

I would advise people to use the cloud version. I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We use a complete ERP solution, with all of the modules including manufacturing, HR, finances, live master planning, production, and inventory management.

Dynamics AX is a good fit for our company's needs, as it facilitates the company's operations across numerous departments. It has proven to be a scalable and adaptable solution. 

Almost all of the features that we use are efficient. Live master planning successfully handles all of our company's requirements.

As for the improvement, we experienced some challenges with the mobile apps due to the insufficient processing capacity to handle the workload effectively. We were unable to assign a manager to ensure a flow of information through mobile operations. There were also a few issues related to dashboards and report management, but mostly, it took a lot of time. They should work on features related to mobile apps, which would allow managers to have access to Dynamics AX-related approvals such as sales orders. That would make things much easier.

We have been using Dynamics AX 2009 and Dynamics AX 2010 for more than ten years.

We have experienced no stability issues with Dynamics AX, and we are satisfied with the current performance.

Our company maintains a substantial database of more than four hundred users and Dynamics AX works well for us. 

We haven't needed to contact customer service since we have a pool of competent and skilled developers who always deliver good results. We rely on them when we face any difficulties. 

Positive

The initial configuration was very well executed. As we have been using Microsoft Dynamics AX for a long time, we have had a good experience with it. Also, our company is fortunate to have a team of highly skilled developers and consultants that handle everything with ease. 

Licensing is stable, and overall, the users are satisfied with it. For now, our Dynamic AX domain is on-premises. We asked for different quotations for AX 2009 and Dynamics 365 as we might switch to it in the future, so it's up to the company which one will be accepted.

We are generally satisfied with Dynamics AX, but I guess that also depends on what type of transactions the company is dealing with. It is important to consider that benefits and use cases may vary depending on the needs of the business itself. Our organization does not work 24/7 but our IT sector is available at all times for all of our users. As of now, we are happy with the solution. But due to server-related, technology-related, and operating system-related issues we face, we plan on moving to Dynamics 365. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.