In our comparison of IFS vs. QAD, IFS is the best option with a higher overall Wheelhouse Score. Wheelhouse Score uses a combination of feature and pricing comparison data, average user ratings, and editorial reviews to score software vendors on a scale of 1-10.
* Vendor does not share prices.
* Vendor does not share prices.
The system's ability to accommodate custom fields, events, and logical units empowers users with potent low-code customization options. This flexibility ensures that the platform can be tailored to meet diverse and specific needs.
The low-code customization options enable powerful adaptations, ensuring that the system aligns seamlessly with unique business requirements.
Subpar support experience. Issues escalated to the support team often face extended resolution times, sometimes spanning weeks.
Deploying QAD was a breeze, and the transition from our previous ERP system to this one was remarkably smooth.
The transition from our previous ERP system to QAD was remarkably smooth.
An inconvenience arises from the fact that log-in credentials are not synchronized with users' Active Directory (AD) accounts. This lack of integration can be less than ideal.
The system's ability to accommodate custom fields, events, and logical units empowers users with potent low-code customization options. This flexibility ensures that the platform can be tailored to meet diverse and specific needs.
The low-code customization options enable powerful adaptations, ensuring that the system aligns seamlessly with unique business requirements.
Subpar support experience. Issues escalated to the support team often face extended resolution times, sometimes spanning weeks.
With QAD, we were able to address our needs for creating financial statements and operational reports, which were used both internally and externally. However, we experienced limitations in terms of user-friendliness and automation."
QAD is a highly robust software that offers extensive functionality for various accounting tasks.
Unfortunately, the user interface is subpar, and certain tasks, such as shipping and receiving, require excessive manual effort, making them inefficient.
The system's ability to accommodate custom fields, events, and logical units empowers users with potent low-code customization options. This flexibility ensures that the platform can be tailored to meet diverse and specific needs.
The low-code customization options enable powerful adaptations, ensuring that the system aligns seamlessly with unique business requirements.
Subpar support experience. Issues escalated to the support team often face extended resolution times, sometimes spanning weeks.
The system's ability to accommodate custom fields, events, and logical units empowers users with potent low-code customization options. This flexibility ensures that the platform can be tailored to meet diverse and specific needs.
The low-code customization options enable powerful adaptations, ensuring that the system aligns seamlessly with unique business requirements.
Subpar support experience. Issues escalated to the support team often face extended resolution times, sometimes spanning weeks.
Deploying QAD was a breeze, and the transition from our previous ERP system to this one was remarkably smooth.
The transition from our previous ERP system to QAD was remarkably smooth.
An inconvenience arises from the fact that log-in credentials are not synchronized with users' Active Directory (AD) accounts. This lack of integration can be less than ideal.
With QAD, we were able to address our needs for creating financial statements and operational reports, which were used both internally and externally. However, we experienced limitations in terms of user-friendliness and automation."
QAD is a highly robust software that offers extensive functionality for various accounting tasks.
Unfortunately, the user interface is subpar, and certain tasks, such as shipping and receiving, require excessive manual effort, making them inefficient.
Add suggested to comparison
In our rating and review comparison of IFS vs. QAD, IFS has 9 user reviews and QAD has 8. The average star rating for IFS is 3.88 while QAD has an average rating of 3.37. IFS has more positive reviews than QAD. Comparing IFS vs. QAD reviews, IFS has stronger overall reviews.
IFS vs. QAD both offer a strong set of features and functionality including Manufacturing/Production Management, Inventory Management, Cash Flow Management, Governance, Risk, & Compliance (GRC), Human Resources (HR) Features, Accounting Features, Project Management Features, Customer Management, Asset Management, Lead Management, Workforce Optimization, Campaign Management, Payroll Features, Shipping & Logistics, Expense Management, File Management, Collaboration Tools, Portal Types, Workflow Automation, Appointments/Scheduling, Reminders/Alerts, Drag-and-Drop Builders/Designers, Reporting & Analytics, Report Management, Data Management, Data Migration, Systems/Administrative, Sync/Refresh, Customizable Items, Third-Party Integrations, Identity and Access Management (IAM), Cybersecurity Features, Disaster Recovery, After-Sales Service. In our feature comparison of IFS vs. QAD, IFS offers more of the most popular features and tools than QAD.
In our pricing comparison of IFS vs. QAD, QAD's pricing starts at 0/month and is more affordable compared to QAD's starting cost of 0/month.
Our comparison of IFS vs. QAD shows that IFS scores higher in usability for meets requirements, ease of admin. QAD scores higher in ease of use, learning curve, but IFS has the best scores overall for system usability.
Get your personalized recommendations now.