In view emerged in recent days, interest in the topic of comparison and 1C SAP decided to share with the community brief conclusions on the comparison of functional SAP ERP and 1C UPP.

The comparison was made in terms of the needs of large industrial enterprises (NGOs) with a full production cycle (from R & D to mass production).

I can honestly say that not much point in this comparison I have not seen: for the foreseeable future to support the SCP will be removed, and in my opinion, the client who buys SAP never buy 1C and vice versa. And it's not about the money. While there is a clear understanding that the SAP and 1C - a different disjoint universes. Rather, as soon as all the declared UP 2.0 functionality is realized, these universes will actually overlap and compete. Curious, I must say, it is a pattern. And while there is what is.

As a comparison was

They were identified about 500 ERP sistems functions. The basis of ERP functions table someone from the big four has been taken. After analysis of functions, similar in essence were removed and as a result left around 250 functions.

The functions have been grouped by SAP modules (in Sapa real modularity) and then the two groups of consultants (SAP and 1C) analyzed implementations of these functions in their systems.

comparison results

The results I spend on the module with some comments.

FI (Financial Accounting) in SAP Buch. accounting in 1C

Here the advantage on the side of 1C. In Sapa little better made keeping debitorki- kreditorki, have a system of reminders. But as far as the work with the bank and receive a variety of accounting and support of the Russian legislation, then there is a cut above 1C SAP.

MM (Materials Management) in SAP Part procurement and inventory accounting in 1C

Operational accounting (movement records TMC) - Bash at the Bash. Planning better in Sapa.

SD (sales management) in SAP Sales Management 1C

Here, too, it can be said parity 1C is not only taking into account the transport operations and the accounting of advertising attacks. But better analytical reports in 1C.

CO (Controlling)

Here 1C loses completely, some controlling functions can be implemented on the basis of budgeting subsystem, but it's all through one place, so promptness here does not smell.

IM (Investment Management)

SCP is not functional in

CFM (Corporate Finance Management)

SCP is not functional in

SEM-BCS (Consolidation of corporate information)

SCP is not functional in

RA (Real Estate Management)

SCP is not functional in

PS (Project Management)

SCP is not functional in

HR (Human Resources) in Sapa payroll and personnel management in the SCP.

Here in the implementation of the Russian SCP features no competition. The rest of the bash on bash.

PP (Production Management) in Sapa and in the SCP is the same

In 1C production records management is implemented only if there is a redistribution of a new feature or a new nomenclature that is not consistent with the practice of engineering industries. There nomenclature when driving on value added products is not changed, it just hung costs. In general one can calculate the cost.

As for the planning, then it would be easier not to declare this functionality. Planning generally weakest part of the soft starter. This topic is dealt with separately.

Summary of production: If we assume that the ideal is not achievable, then 4 and 2 SCP Sapa.

PM (MRO)

SCP is not functional in

SEM- CPM (Corporate Performance Monitoring, management of relations with stakeholders)

SCP is not functional in

BW (Business Analysis and Strategic Management)

SCP is not functional in

WF (process management and workflows)

SCP is not functional in

SCM- APO (A detailed integrated planning and optimization)

SCP is not functional in

SCM- APO (A detailed integrated planning and optimization)

SCP is not functional in

General comments on glanders and 1C

Consultants

SAP - proprietary nature (to find a consultant who knows the adjacent module - it is already a great success, and if you still can abapit, it is already close to a miracle). But this unity of concepts - a sapper under the PR, TK, CTI understands the same thing. As a consequence the project team when formiruesh concepts are no compatibility issues. No matter how people collect: how freelancers or subcontract.

1C - Do not know the adjacent area - it is bad form. 80% Percent able kodit, many at high level. But with the concepts - complete confusion and vacillation. The first step in the project is necessary to join the conceptual apparatus and technologies. And have a couple of subcontractors on the project - it is not for the faint of heart.

design

SAP - a laborious process, requiring specific knowledge of the system tables consequence: long and expensive.

1C - here compared with glanders - a pleasure to work with the objects of the business logic, and the rest of the platform takes over. Consequence - the complexity is much lower, lightweight portability and adaptation of code.

Interface

SAP - sucks, legacy DOS. Usability suffers in all directions.

1C - Intuitive, easy to learn.

Conclusions:

Since the SCP - already leaving the system, it would be interesting to carry out a comparison with the UE 2.0, which I hope will be done in the coming year.

PS Please do not throw rotten tomatoes at me, if there is any doubt in the analysis, one can carry out the same comparison for yourself.