SAP S/4HANA Reviews

SAP has many functionalities and a high level of detail so that you can manage all processes in detail without any issues.

It would be very good to merge the SuccessFactors or other solutions with S/4HANA to make it one suite. They could have a single dashboard for all types of products. I have many embedded solutions. 

I have been using SAP S/4HANA for four years.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

Six hundred users are using this solution.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

SAP needs to improve its support. They don't provide a quality response.

Neutral

I have used IBM and Microsoft.

The initial setup is easy.

There is an additional cost for migration.

Only one consultant is enough for the solution's maintenance. 

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Our company implements the solution for customers in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. We manage transformational projects that include selection, upgrade, or replacement of systems that require ERP solutions. 

Our biggest implementation was for a chemical company's software hub that was custom-built on an AS/400 mainframe and they wanted to move to an ERP system.  After a six-month package selection process, we chose the solution combined with extensions provided by an implementation partner that added specific functionality and narrowed down customizations. 

Across all of our projects, there are 5,000 users of the solution. 

The finance solution and procurement functionalities are good. 

Items that impact the TCO should be improved because the solution is very complex to integrate and keep running. 

Integration with a portal or front end is needed. For example, the online collaboration part of SAP with vendors lacks functionality. Integrating with sales or service processes with a CRM or cloud for customers uses three different SAP systems. Customers typically choose Salesforce instead because the SAP system is not good.

There is a very large learning curve for different domains from an end user perspective. Some things are easy to understand and other things are complex. Users receive cryptic error messages when they do things that they do not fully understand. 

I have been using the solution for seven years. 

The solution is stable with no complaints from customers. 

On occasion, users get cryptic error messages that they cannot resolve themselves. Someone else has to assist which results in downtime from the IT side and that has a negative impact on business performance. 

Implementation partners handle issues with support staff and response times are very high. Support staff know the product in most cases and are good. 

It might take time for implementation partners to be notified of issues and then reach out to support for assistance. This support chain is expensive because the customer is invoiced based on the number of total support hours needed.

I rate technical support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The initial setup requires advanced knowledge and can take two to three days. In some cases, setup can take several days before demo mode is available.  

Implementation partners handle setups and our company handles project management and quality assurance from the customer's perspective. 

Customers do not manage the complex environment on their own but rather depend on service providers such as Deloitte or Capgemini. The price of operational support only makes sense or is efficient in instances with two or three FTEs. 

The solution often does not survive our shortlist round because it is very expensive when compared to other products. It is only appropriate or selected for very specific use cases and types of companies. 

In some cases, the solution is ten to twenty-five times more expensive than competitors like Dynamics because it requires licensing, cloud environment costs, and contracts for maintenance and support. 

Our company recommends various ERP systems depending on use case and customer environment. We have worked with Dynamics 365, NetSuite, Unit4, N4, Baan, and Vision. We work on transformation trajectories for customers who use ERP systems and want to replace, upgrade, or do a greenfield approach.

The solution is a good fit for use cases where customizations are required on top to cover sector-specific business needs, as opposed to custom greenfield implementations of Dynamics 365 with much custom development. The solution reduces the amount of customization that needs to be implemented.

Use cases for domains with no vertical solution built on top are not a good fit for the solution. 

The solution is complex to learn and user acceptance of NetSuite is ten times faster.

It is difficult to rate the solution. For some customers, it is a seven and for others it is a one out of ten. It really depends on the sector and fit gap between needs and business processes. 

There are many cases or exceptions where the solution is not a good fit, so I rate it a four out of ten overall. 

SAP S4HANA is a resource-plaining solution that can help with digital transformation by using features, such as robotic process automation. It has very useful functionality but, at the moment, AI is not very natural in the world.

Our company is very large and out of the largest six modules in SAP S4HANA, we use Material Management, Sales and Distribution, Plant Maintenance, Quality Management, Customer Service, and Production Planning.

We use all modules in accounting, for example, Financial Supply Chain Management, Treasury Management, and Project System. In the warehouse, we use Transportation Management and Extended Warehouse Management and in the HR system, we use Personnel Administration, Payroll, and Time Administration.

SAP S4HANA robotic process automation has helped our organization by reducing approximately 80% of work in the accounting department.

The functionality of SAP S4HANA is very good when comparing it to others, such as Oracle, Microsoft, and other ERP solutions.

Thi solution can improve the Bill of Materials (BOM) and production planning.

In an upcoming release, the Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) in SAP is very simple, and SAP should extend PLM in the ERP system. Additionally, SAP S4HANA should add more advanced features for monitoring in the database, such as in the Oracle solution.

I have been using SAP S4HANA for approximately five years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is highly scalable.

We have more than 6,000 people using this solution in my organization.

We are not able to use technical support in my country because in Iran it is sanctioned. However, we have not needed the support, the solution has been working well.

The initial setup of SAP S4HANA is a very complex and time-consuming process. If you want to implement all modules then it will take more than 10 days.

The price of the solution is reasonable but some modules can be expensive. When comparing SAP S4HANA to other solutions, such as Oracle, it is not expensive.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Oracle.

I would strongly recommend this solution to others.

I rate SAP S4HANA a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for a retail customer. As an administrator, my activities involve system installation, troubleshooting, and performance management.

The tool could improve development, particularly during upgrades or conversions from ERP systems to the solution. Adapting the code to the new standards can be challenging, especially when customers try to keep their old ERP developments.

I have been using the product since 2018. 

I rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten. 

SAP S/4HANA's scalability is good. 

I have contacted SAP's technical support, mainly for incidents rather than during installation. They're about 90% accurate, but sometimes they can be slow or misunderstand the issue.

Positive

The product's deployment is easy and fast. The deployment time varies depending on the scenario and environment. From development to production, it can take a few weeks. Starting the development system doesn't take long if you have all the preparations done - like sizing, setting up the final systems, and accessing them.

The tool's licensing is very expensive. They've changed their licensing model from the old ERP system to a new model using FUEs, which is somewhat better but still expensive.

I'm not directly involved in financial operations. However, from conversations with colleagues in finance, I understand there have been improvements since using the tool. The main challenge is often user resistance to change, as they're used to working with the previous system.

I advise new users to get an overview or take a course to understand the system's capabilities. Preparing the end-users for the implementation is crucial, especially when moving from old systems to new ones.

I rate the product a nine out of ten. It's a really powerful tool that has been improving since around 2016. The improvements in the Fiori interface and its integration with the system are particularly impressive.

This solution is installed in the customer's system, and we perform SAP Basis administration. 

The migration to SAP S/4HANA is hard.

We've been using it for one year. It is deployed on-premises and in the cloud.

At present, it seems very stable because it is in the cloud.

The scalability depends on the tier you have. You may need to pay more as you scale up.

I have 10 administrators and 7 customers using S/4HANA at present. Our objective is to scale, but it's difficult because customers are scared to migrate to S/4HANA.

We used R/3 before S/4HANA. We switched to S/4HANA in order to stay with SAP solutions.

The initial deployment is difficult, and migration is hard when big data is involved. For a medium company, the initial deployment can take six to seven months, or maybe even one year to get it done perfectly.

For maintenance, you would need two or three people for a medium company.

Depending on the client, we have deployed it ourselves or have done so with the help of an integrator.

It is an expensive solution. On a scale from one to five, with five being the most expensive, I would rate the price at four.

I would rate SAP S/4HANA at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We are consultants who help supervise our customers' implementation projects. Two of our customers use S4HANA. The older ones are on the ECC platform.

We found that the implementing partners themselves are struggling with S4HANA's features. It's not an exact translation of the older ECC, so SAP has taken a new route to do things with S4HANA. Maybe it's a good product, but the implementing partners also like to have an in-depth understanding of the full feature set the product offers. There are areas where even the implementer has to go back to set, which takes time, so that's one of our major concerns.

The older implementations were cloud-based, but one is happening now in one of the larger utilities, which sells services to around 4 million consumers. That's an ongoing project that hasn't gone live yet. This will be the real test. In a year, we'll know, and we can give more feedback.

Another complaint I have is that the screen source is disjointed. When I say this, I'm speaking from a user experience perspective. I don't know the S4HANA database, so I can't say if it's good or bad. I am sure that S4HANA would have certain limitations compared to Oracle, which is the gold standard for databases. Maybe there are some challenges in the backend, but I don't dwell on those because I'm not a technician. But the graphical interface requires improvement, and its flow should be very smooth. 

Also, the Fiori app is very basic. They need to become richer because people tend to use Fiori to access the S4HANA application to save on license costs. Fiori gives you access because it's a web client, and they market it as an app. It's not really a full-fledged app, but the roadmap has to be cleared from SAP. And when its capabilities improve, it gives a native app experience when people use Fiori.

I haven't been using S4HANA for long. It's been two years now.

S4HANA is relatively stable, but it's not as stable as ECC was. ECC had a long time to mature, so S4HANA still has a few years to go before it can achieve the level of stability that we've come to expect from SAP.

We've primarily relied on the local implementers for support, and there are challenges whenever they need to refer back to SAP's own technical support. It usually takes longer than expected in many cases. Sometimes they're pretty fast, but they're usually not, which is a serious concern.

We've worked with three of the biggest products in the ERP segment: S4HANA, Oracle EBS, and Microsoft Dynamics AX. Microsoft Dynamics is pretty straightforward. It's not as complex and offers a good user experience, whereas SAP through Fiori gives a certain level of user experience, but that's not as good as what Microsoft offers. But the rich line where you go through the desktop license — that user interface is still cumbersome. It's not as user-friendly I must say. On the other hand, Oracle is the middle of the two. I won't say that it's as good as Microsoft's user experience. However, while it is a bit more complex than Microsoft, it's not as complex as SAP. 

I would currently rate S4HANA seven out of 10. We tell our clients that SAP's roadmap shows us that S4HANA will mature in time. It won't happen tomorrow. They have to make an informed decision whether they want to live with certain delays in getting certain fixes or go with another solution. SAP is such a big name, so half the time, people are willing to live with those delays with the expectation that things will get better in a year or two. SAP is a trusted name, and I'm sure they must be doing something now to get S4HANA up to speed. I hope they understand that.

We use it for the FICO {Financial Accounting (FI), Management Accounting (CO)}, SD, and MM modules.

We don't face any problems with the modules, but we have a problem with the web solution. The web access sometimes has difficulties with logging in.

The support should be improved. Every time we submit tickets to SAP, the process takes a long time.

Also, improved performance, reliability, and stability would be beneficial.

In my current company, we migrated to SAP S/4HANA last year in January. It means we started using it in January 2023.

It is not really stable. 

Based on the SAP support we currently use, the users access SAP through the web. In the web interface, we have a lot of connection issues. 

Although SAP claims they are addressing these problems, they have not taken any concrete action. Instead, they try to shift the responsibility back to the customer.

According to our agreement, these tasks should be handled by SAP. However, the support team consistently insists that these issues fall under their scope. This is the challenge we are currently facing.

It is scalable enough. We have over a hundred end users using it. There are around five administrators for this product.

When we want to raise a ticket on the SAP portal, the process takes a longer time, and there are many selections that confuse the user. SAP should simplify the way tickets are submitted. This is what we hope they will improve.

They need to improve the solution and streamline the process. We want to bring the issue in more clearly so we can know which option to select.  

Neutral

The pricing is okay. It is higher. It is expensive. 

We encountered an issue when we implemented SAP S/4HANA. It wasn't properly implemented with disaster recovery. The disaster recovery was an additional feature that required a separate payment to implement a disaster recovery plan.

Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten because the support is very bad. 

I have been a consultant for SAP retail, SAP Fashion as well as generic.  I also have been exposed to many business sectors. 

The user interface should be much more convenient and user-friendly. 

In future releases, there could be more use of AI.

I have been using this solution for more than five years. 

The solution offers good stability. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It is reliable. I have a lot of customers using this solution. There are more than 500 end users. 

The customer service and support are fast. SAP addressed my tickets quite quickly.

The initial setup is not complex; it's more at a medium level. Not too easy, but with the right knowledge, you can configure it.

For a migration process, it took around six to seven months, which was the fastest I've done. For implementation projects, it typically takes around one year, sometimes one and a half.

It was implemented in a waterfall approach, and one was brownfield. I would suggest, not from the SAP side, but from the client side, if the hardware components are powerful, the system would run faster. In migration projects, data migration can take a lot of time, so having a reliable server is important.

We recommend annual licensing. It is expensive, but for large-scale companies, it's manageable.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would say that SAP should make the user interface more user-friendly, which would be a plus point, especially in pre-sales.