Skip to main content

Why I remain a Microsoft Dynamics GP champion

by Gloria Braunschweig
President, Dorian Enterprises, Computeration, Inc.
June 13 2013

I've had several recent discussions about why I continue to recommend, sell, and support Microsoft Dynamics GP rather than transition to Dynamics AX.  These have been discussions with developers, clients, prospects, business associates, and application consultants, each dealing with a different aspect of the complex relationship between these ERP solutions. I'll provide a comprehensive report of my responses to different questions and concerns, because although my answers overlap, there are also distinct reasons why I remain a GP champion, even as the product evolves in relation to Dynamics AX.

Product Functionality Distinctions

Dynamics AX has powerful and flexible manufacturing functionality. Dynamics GP manufacturing is straightforward, with routings and manufacturing orders. AX can be molded to fit every manufacturing scenario while GP is only used for discrete manufacturing.  In addition, GP's manufacturing job cost and quality control modules are weak.

GP has flexible and comprehensive financial modules including fixed asset management and electronic banking functionality. AX requires third-party modules for fixed asset and electronic banking functionality.

In that AX was initially developed in Europe, its multicurrency functionality is strong. GP has a moderate-capability multicurrency module.

What I Discuss with Developers

Fundamentally different in database design, AX wins out over GP with contemporary programmers. If a company requires and can afford customized functionality, AX is the choice. GP customers will typically look to cover custom needs with a module developed by a third-party. After Microsoft acquired Navision and Axapta (the former names of Dynamics NAV and AX), Dexterity, the programming language used for customizing GP, fell out of favor. In late 2012 and early 2013, Microsoft announced it was reviving Dexterity because they were able to reuse Dexterity code for  the new web client  while Visual Basic customizations were not compatible. ...

FREE Membership Required to View Full Content:

Joining gives you free, unlimited access to news, analysis, white papers, case studies, product brochures, and more. You can also receive periodic email newsletters with the latest relevant articles and content updates.
Learn more about us here

About Gloria Braunschweig

Gloria has experience across the full spectrum of business operations and management. Decades of experience are documented in the book Rapid Implementation, establishing Gloria as a specialists using Microsoft SQL tools for implementation, integration, and business intelligence related to Microsoft Dynamics GP.

Gloria writes and presents on lean implementation concepts and business management systems for small and mid-size businesses. 

Submitted by MikeLupro on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 12:09 Permalink

You were born to be a writer! I endorse the opinions in your article 100%. Thanks for 'defending' Microsoft Dynamics GP. I know someone who (in a prior life) tried to implement AX in their company. At the $7,000,000.00 mark they abandoned the effort. I've also seen VAR's where EVERY new prospect is an AX sale opportunity. That's just plain wrong. And you've expressed this very nicely. I have this article on speed-dial to send to other's who ask about the future of GP. Mike Lupro - MCP

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Submitted by MichaelM on Wed, 06/19/2013 - 18:13 Permalink

Having sold both packages for many years, your post makes very some very good points. Both packages work and are solid offerings, but they do serve different requirements. IF GP fits, don't buy a more expensive AX solution. But sometime GP does not fit. AX is more configurable and has more functionality in most areas than GP. More configurable means it fits more prospects scenarios than GP, but it takes more effort ($) to configure in the implementation than GP (but conversely this means less customisation($) than if you implemented GP, so... the trade off.) AX is positioned as the Dynamics Enterprise solution and people instantly think larger companies, but GP fits larger companies. It's all about Enterprise type requirements. Some large companies really don't have enterprise level requirements. If they have Enterprise level requirements AX may (and I say may, depending on requirements) be a better and possibly cheaper solution, through less customisation. Some sales I have made I would not have won without AX. Some I sales I would have lost if I put AX up. They all have their place in the market. Renown is asked constantly about the differences between Microsoft Dynamics AX vs. GP etc. So much so we wrote a page on it, including Microsoft’s own positioning;… Hope that helps Michael

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)