This article includes insights from GraVoc's Kevin Howes II, Director - AX/Finance & Operations and David Laster, Director ‑ Software Solutions | Microsoft MVP | BCUG/NAVUG All Star.
With Microsoft Dynamics Great Plains (GP) approaching end of life in 2029, many GP users are now actively evaluating their next ERP system. For most, that search quickly leads to Dynamics 365 Business Central. Many have limited knowledge of Microsoft’s other ERP option: Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations (F&O).
Through conversations with GP users at conferences and during discovery calls, our Business Central and Finance & Operations consultants have noticed a common theme. Many GP users assume Business Central is the only path to the cloud, while Finance & Operations is often viewed as too expensive, too complex, or designed strictly for large enterprises.
That’s a misconception.
For GP users planning a cloud migration, both Business Central and Finance & Operations can be viable options. The right choice depends less on company size and more on operational complexity and long-term growth plans.
In this video series, our Business Central expert David Laster, and our Finance & Operations expert, Kevin Howes II, sit down to share experience-based insights comparing Business Central vs F&O for Dynamics GP users, and answer common questions that GP users have about both cloud-based platforms.
Highlights from the Video Series (With Quotes)
Below are answers to the most common questions we hear from Dynamics GP users considering Business Central or Finance & Operations, pulled directly from the video conversation.
Is Dynamics 365 F&O too large or complex for GP users?
No. As an enterprise-level software, F&O is often assumed to require hundreds of users, but it can scale to smaller organizations.
Kevin explains: “We have customers all the way down into the 10s of users… Once you set up your base – your GL, your accounting fundamentals – the modules you choose really scale the size of the product up or down. The minimum user count is 20 licenses… the smallest I typically see is around 35 to 40”
What this means for GP Users: F&O is not about employee count alone.
It’s about:
- Operational complexity
- Multi-entity structures
- Advanced manufacturing requirements
- Long-term scalability
For GP customers with growing operational complexity, F&O may be a realistic option sooner than they expect.
Do you need an 'army of consultants' to implement Dynamics 365 F&O?
Not necessarily. Team size depends on scope and rollout strategy.
Many Microsoft Dynamics GP users assume Finance & Operations automatically requires a massive consulting team.
Kevin explains: “It can take an army of consultants, but it doesn't necessarily take an army of consultants to get F&O in place. There's not a uniform right size for consulting help; it really depends on the scale of your operation, how many users and how many modules your company is going to engage with.”
For example, a multi-entity distributor and manufacturer using advanced warehouse management, mobile devices, transportation management, and multiple integrations will naturally require more effort to implement.
But there are different ways to approach it.
Some organizations bring in a larger team and complete the project in 12–14 months with a single go-live. Others work with a smaller team — often around five consultants — and roll out in phases, starting with core manufacturing before adding advanced warehousing capabilities later.
As Kevin notes: “More important than the number of consultants is having a game plan and following through to the letter on that game plan.”
How do manufacturing requirements affect the choice between Dynamics 365 Business Central and F&O?
Manufacturing repeatedly surfaced as a deciding factor between the two platforms.
David explains: “Business Central really is a pretty good manufacturing solution for the SMB market… especially for discrete manufacturing, assembling products, and building bills of materials.”
However, he says, “Process manufacturing and more complex scenarios are where F&O may be a better fit.”
The takeaway for GP users: don’t assume Business Central can’t handle manufacturing but do evaluate what kind of manufacturing you run.
Do Dynamics 365 Business Central and F&O require heavy customization?
No, both ERPs support customization, but neither requires it to succeed.
Kevin notes: “I have implemented vanilla, not a single modification, Finance & Operations. It is doable.”
“Most customers have a small to medium amount of customization… There’s no wrong way to do it, but you have to be intentional.”
On the Business Central side, extensions and ISVs offer flexibility without heavy upgrade risk, while F&O provides deeper customization with more responsibility around testing and updates.
How do automatic updates work in Dynamics 365 Business Central and F&O?
Moving from GP’s on-prem upgrade model to a cloud ERP changes how updates are handled, and that concern came up directly in the conversation.
David acknowledges the hesitation many GP users feel: “Moving from on-prem to cloud means that changes how I manage rollouts of updates and customizations… having been so long in Great Plains, that kind of scares me.”
On both Business Central and Finance & Operations, updates are delivered automatically on a Microsoft cadence. The key difference is the process customers build around testing and validation.
Kevin explains: “What I see the most success with are customers that build a process around updates and stay ahead of the schedule instead of scrambling.”
Rather than disruptive upgrades every few years, customers receive:
- Smaller, predictable feature releases
- Ongoing security improvements
- Continuous performance enhancements
As Kevin puts it: “Once you develop a good cadence, you’re actually going to be pretty happy with it because you’re getting the latest and greatest features as part of what you’re already paying for.”
How should Dynamics GP users approach data migration to the cloud?
Data migration is unavoidable when moving off GP, and the conversation emphasized that success depends more on process than tooling.
On the Finance & Operations side, data is migrated using structured data entities and Excel/CSV imports, but the real key is doing it iteratively.
Kevin explains: “We do it iteratively… we expect to find errors the first time. We take those lessons learned and run it again. If we only see one or two data migrations, that’s a red flag. That’s usually when projects struggle.”
Successful migrations typically include:
- CRP validation
- User Acceptance Testing (UAT) cycles
- Mock cutovers
- Repeated trial conversions
Whether migrating to Business Central or Finance & Operations, teams that treat migration as a process, not a one-time event, reduce go-live risk and build confidence.
Key Takeaways
The right ERP decision is less about company size and more about operational complexity, manufacturing type, and long-term growth strategy. For GP users, Business Central is often a strong fit, but it is not the only path forward. Finance & Operations remains a viable and sometimes better alternative for organizations with deeper requirements.
What GP users should remember:
- F&O is not “too big” just because you’re not a large enterprise.
- Business Central is not “too small” just because you manufacture.
- Both platforms receive automatic cloud updates — success depends on your internal processes.
- Data migration success is about iteration and testing, not just tooling.
- Implementation size depends more on scope than software choice.
If your current GP system primarily supports standard financials, distribution, or discrete manufacturing with moderate complexity, Business Central can be the logical cloud successor.
If your organization is evolving toward multi-entity, advanced manufacturing, or highly integrated operations, Finance & Operations deserves serious consideration, even if you assumed it was out of reach.
