Find ERP Software — the DACH-focused independent marketplace
Finding the right ERP is harder than it should be. Vendor websites promise everything; analyst reports are written for enterprise audiences; consultancies have incentives that buyers cannot easily read; ERP marketplaces are often pay-to-rank disguised as comparison. erp-software.org is built as the independent counter-position: a DACH mid-market comparison portal with disclosed methodology, editorial neutrality and no pay-to-rank.
This page explains what we cover, how we compare, what we do not do and how to use the filter tools to narrow a long-list quickly.
What we cover
The portal lists more than 300 ERP products that are commercially available to German-speaking mid-market and SMB buyers, plus the surrounding service provider landscape (selection advisors, implementation partners, hosting providers, integration specialists, training partners). The product directory covers the full range from tier-1 (SAP S/4HANA, Oracle Fusion Cloud) through upper mid-market (Microsoft Dynamics 365, Infor CloudSuite, IFS) and the German Mid-Market specialists (proAlpha, abas, oxaion, ams.erp, PSI Penta) down to cloud-native SMB products (myfactory, weclapp, Lexware Office, Sage 50 Cloud) and industry specialists (JTL-Wawi, Xentral, Pickware, plentyOne).
Each product has a structured profile covering deployment model, target segment, industry coverage, key modules, integration ecosystem, hosting and data-residency information, and the kind of company the vendor actually sells to today — not the marketing aspiration. The profile data is maintained editorially, sourced from vendor input, partner input and observed customer deployments, and updated on a published cadence.
Methodology: how we compare
Three principles drive the methodology. Editorial neutrality. We do not accept money for ranking position. The directory order is determined editorially and the criteria are published. Vendors can submit corrections to their profiles and can submit additional evidence; they cannot buy their way up.
Structured comparison. Comparison tables are built on a fixed set of attributes — deployment model, target segment, industry verticals, German-compliance coverage (GoBD, DATEV, ZUGFeRD, XRechnung), language support, hosting options, partner ecosystem density. Attribute values are either factual (a product either supports XRechnung or does not) or editorial assessments with disclosed criteria.
Transparency about gaps. Where we lack confidence in a profile entry, we mark it as unverified rather than guess. Where a vendor has not responded to a profile update request, we record that fact. Buyers should be able to see what we know, what we do not know and how recently the information was checked.
What we do not do
We do not run a lead-broker model. The portal is not a request-for-quote funnel that resells contact data to vendors; the editorial neutrality would not survive the conflict of interest. We do not publish individual product scores in star-rating or 10-point scale form — the format produces false precision and rewards vendors who optimise the rating game rather than the underlying product.
We do not generate vendor-paid ‘case studies’ or ‘analyst reports’ that promote individual products. We publish editorially-written guides on selection, migration, implementation, cost and the specific questions DACH mid-market buyers face — ERP selection, RFP process, cost overview, migration, cloud vs on-prem — without specific vendor endorsement.
Filter tools: faster to the long-list
The directory supports filtering by company size segment (micro, SMB, lower Mid-Market, upper Mid-Market, large enterprise), by industry (manufacturing, trade, e-commerce, services, construction, logistics, food, pharma, automotive, chemicals and others), by deployment model (public cloud SaaS, private cloud SaaS, hosted on-premises, on-premises) and by specific compliance features (GoBD, DATEV, XRechnung, ZUGFeRD).
The typical buyer flow: start from the industry page (for example ERP for manufacturing), narrow by company size, narrow by deployment model preference, end with a long-list of 8–15 candidates. That long-list is the starting point for a structured RFP using the requirements document template; the portal is the discovery tool, not the selection tool.
How the portal is funded
Independence depends on a funding model that does not corrupt the editorial line. erp-software.org is funded by a combination of advertising (clearly labelled, sold on impressions rather than ranking), sponsored content (clearly labelled as such, never mixed with editorial directory positions), partner-program revenue for service-provider listings (disclosed, never affecting product rankings) and editorial commissions for selection guides where a buyer specifically requests an external opinion.
The portal is operated by Alpar Ventures GmbH in Berlin. Editorial ownership rests with the publisher; vendor relationships are managed at arm's length from the editorial function. Buyers who want to understand the funding model in more detail can find the disclosure on the imprint and editorial-policy pages.
Related Topics
Frequently Asked Questions
Is erp-software.org an analyst firm?
No. We are an independent comparison portal, not an analyst firm. We do not produce paid analyst engagements, vendor-commissioned market reports or syndicated research products. The editorial output is structured directory data plus editorial guides for buyers, both freely accessible. Buyers who need formal analyst input use Gartner, Forrester, IDC or PAC alongside our portal.
Can vendors pay for a better directory position?
No. The directory order and the editorial assessments are not for sale. Vendors can submit profile corrections and evidence; they cannot buy ranking. Sponsored content and advertising are clearly labelled and never affect the directory order. The funding model is built explicitly to prevent the pay-to-rank pattern that compromises many ERP comparison sites.
Why do you not publish numerical ratings?
Numerical ratings produce false precision. A 7.2/10 versus a 6.9/10 conveys statistical authority that the underlying assessment cannot support, and rewards vendors that optimise rating-game inputs (review-collection campaigns, lobbying for re-scores) rather than product quality. We publish structured attribute data and editorial commentary; we leave the synthesis into a final score to the buyer's own scorecard, which is the only place a score actually makes sense.
How recent is the directory data?
Each profile carries a ‘last reviewed’ date. We update profiles on a rolling schedule, with priority for vendors that ship significant releases, change ownership or change their commercial model. The publisher commits to no profile being older than 18 months; current target is no profile older than 12 months. Buyers who notice stale information can submit a correction request through the contact form.