Aptean Industrial Manufacturing ERP Traverse Edition vs. QuickBooks Online Advanced

I honestly think that it's extremely outdated and don't understand why anyone would still use it. Especially in a non-profit setting. In our field we have to be able to track revenue and expenses by funds, and with the way those funding streams tend to cross an agency or company's fiscal year, the fact that it is virtually impossible to pull the information in that manner restricts a finance department more than anything.

Incentivized

I gave this rating more from the standpoint that I enjoy using other bookkeeping platforms more than I enjoy QuickBooks Online Advanced. While QuickBooks Online Advanced is a solid platform that I have no issue working in, there are some areas that could be improved. The biggest of these areas is the overall design of the platform. I feel that when you first log in and are brought to the home screen, everything just looks cluttered.

Incentivized

• No confusing reporting.
• Easy to follow interface.
• Simplified experience.

Incentivized

• It allows us to link to bank accounts in order to get up-to-date, real-time information, which is so important in today's lightning speed work world.
• The "canned" reports are excellent and allow for extreme customization also. This makes them very helpful to both me and my clients.
• The user interface for QuickBooks Online Advanced is easy to navigate and is intuitive for novices. The screens are well laid out and have cohesiveness on each screen to match tasks with others that match up well.

Incentivized

• Not user-friendly or intuitive in the least. Even with the instruction manual, it's like part of it is missing or you are expected to know certain items before even looking.
• Reporting is very basic and impossible to customize on the user's end. You must have tech support build them for you. Also, no cross fiscal year reporting.
• Can't cut only one check if you have other invoices already entered in the batch.
• The chart of account codes are not independent. You must build your whole GL for each fund source or program, which leaves you with an unwieldy chart of accounts.

Incentivized

• Proper advice in QuickBooks Online Pro for the usage if QuickBooks Online Advanced will be more efficient.
• More features and space in the app for organization of the self-created workflows.
• The stability of QuickBooks Online Advanced can still be better.
• There are still file-size issues and limitations on transactions and attributes of transactions.

QuickBooks Online Advanced is not like any other accounting software. With how great the software is now, I would definitely renew QuickBooks Online Advanced

Incentivized

QuickBooks Online Advanced is great and effective. I use it for almost three months and it definitely does their job

Incentivized

The online training was easy to follow and understand. The online training gave us the specific instructions to follow

Incentivized

Need to make an option for non-profit organizations

Incentivized

If you've used CYMA, you'll be familiar with the way OSAS builds the GL, however CYMA is light years ahead of OSAS. If you've used anything like Abila MIP, you'll understand the comparison when I say "Abila is like using power tools to build your bookcase, CYMA is like using a hand saw and hammer, and OSAS is using a chisel to carve one out of wood." They all will get the job done and at the end of the day, you have a book case. But depending on which tools you use will either be ready for a library or a couple of small tomes. I didn't select OSAS, and never would it have been given consideration to be used as my accounting software

Incentivized

I have not evaluated any yet. I have used QuickBooks since 2008 and I used Sage in the corporate environment before using QuickBooks. Honestly, I can't remember it because it was early 2000's. I thought about evaluating and looking because of the issues I've had with QuickBooks, but I haven't really investigated.

Incentivized

• We have to do so much tracking of expenses by hand, that using OSAS doesn't save us any money in that respect.
• I believe my predecessor used OSAS for over 15 years so she obviously felt comfortable with it. I can make do with it and at least track my bottom line.
• No real reporting other than basic balance sheets.

Incentivized

• Positive - time and accuracy: Improved bank feeds with rules for automating categorization (expense account) of transactions.
• Negative - time and efficiency: Very slow response in data entry such as estimates, purchase orders, invoices, sales receipts, bills & bill payment, and even check writing.
• Negative - time and error correction: Payroll taxes and sales taxes remain in their own silos and are very difficult to correct OR wrong to correct with regular ledger and transaction entries.
• Negative - time and reporting: Customer activity cannot be tracked using deposits or JE'd transactions. Reporting and research require the use of transaction forms such as invoices, sales receipts, payments, and credit memos. As an example, the transaction register for a customer can be sorted by various parameters. A default is "All" transactions but does not include all transactions -- you have to select "All plus deposits" and you will also not see checks. This is about the same for Vendor activity, where deposits (e.g. refunds) will not show in the vendor's activity register. A vendor credit memo is required, then the refund can be pushed against that credit balance. The credit memo will appear in the vendor register, but a deposit will not.

Incentivized