How we profile ERP systems — and what that does not mean.

1. Editorial principles

The platform follows four editorial principles that apply to all content — homepage, deep dives, knowledge and product pages:

• Vendor-neutral instead of product advertising. No paid placements, no "vendor of the week", no highlighted system.
• Uniform criteria. Every system considered is profiled along the same axes — regardless of whether the vendor is large or small.
• Professional profiling before emotion. Both strengths and critical points are named. No system is presented exclusively in a positive light.
• Separation of profiling and service. Paid services (selection advisory, requirements specification) are marked as such and are delivered by a partner — not by the editorial team itself.

2. Evaluation criteria

The profiling is carried out along six axes that have repeatedly proved decisive in project situations:

1. Size focus. Which company size does the system typically address credibly?
2. International reach. How viable is the system with several countries, languages and local compliance requirements?
3. Deployment model. Cloud, hybrid, on-premise — and how realistic are the respective options today?
4. Functional strengths. Which modules are typically load-bearing, which are more of an addition?
5. Critical project points. Where do projects with this system tend to fail, in practice — TCO, partner quality, customisation, rollout depth?
6. Decision triggers. What are typical constellations in which the system is, in practice, the right choice?

There is deliberately no numerical scoring and no ranking. A scoring would feign criteria weightings that can only emerge in the concrete project.

3. How the editorial team works

The content is created in a multi-stage process:

1. Research. Publicly accessible product information, vendor documentation, analyst material and own project experience.
2. Structuring. Every system profile follows the same scheme (six axes, see above) so that systems remain comparable.
3. Cross-check. Substantive assessments are cross-read internally before they are published.
4. Professionals behind it. The editorial team consists of people with many years of ERP project experience from an operations perspective, not from advisory marketing.

Input from readers is taken seriously: professional corrections to profiles are welcome and are reviewed (see section 6).

4. Independence & financing

A professional portal lives from its independence. The financing model is therefore kept transparent:

• No page-level commissions. There are no paid placements, no "sponsored slots" and no affiliate links on system pages.
• No vendor clients. The platform is not paid for or operated by an ERP vendor.
• Lead logic as the business model. Qualified inquiries may be passed on to suitable partners of the platform — exclusively with the explicit consent of the prospect and without influence on the content of the profiling.
• Fixed-price services. Selection advisory and requirements specification are clearly marked as paid products and are delivered by a permanent partner (Tech IQ Business Consulting GmbH).

5. Limits of the methodology

An honest methodology also names its limits:

• The profiling is a starting point, not a substitute for structured selection advisory or a requirements specification.
• System assessments are context-dependent: the same system can be viable in one company and unsuitable in another.
• Markets change. Editions, pricing structures and partner landscapes shift — which is why the selection is reviewed every six months.
• The platform deliberately looks at a selection, not the entire market. Criterion for inclusion: relevant demand in the German mid-market.

6. Updates & corrections

System profiles and the comparison matrix are reviewed every six months and adjusted when there are relevant changes. Anyone who spots factual errors or outdated information can reach the editorial team via the contact page. Corrections are documented and made traceable in the legal notice.

Last review: April 2026.