MRPCompare

1. Purpose of transparency

MRPCompare exists to give manufacturing businesses an independent, evidence-based resource for evaluating Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP) and broader manufacturing management platforms. With over 100 features assessed across each platform, the reliability of those assessments depends entirely on the rigour and transparency of the methodology behind them.

We want to provide you with the information on:

– How features are defined and scored
– The two levels of review applied to each platform
– How commercial relationships are disclosed
– The steps taken to ensure consistency, fairness, and freedom from bias
– How errors or disputes are handled

Note: This methodology is versioned. Any material change to scoring criteria, definitions, or process will result in a new version number and a logged change note. Platform scores affected by methodology changes will be updated accordingly.

2. Feature Rating Scale

Every feature is assessed against a consistent four-point scale. The definitions below are applied identically across all platforms, regardless of vendor relationship or platform popularity. Scoring notes are retained internally and available on request.

2.1 Feature Rating Scale

The rating framework answers a single question: can this platform perform this function easily? It does not assess the quality of the functionality, rather can it perform to a bare minimum.

– A “Yes” requires the feature to work without workarounds

– A “Maybe” requires the feature to work with workarounds

– A “No” requires the feature to be absent from the platform

– A “Paid” requires a feature to be behind a separately purchased module or add-on not just a platform tier

3. MRPCompare Review Levels

Not all platforms have been subject to the same depth of investigation. To be transparent about the confidence behind each score, we distinguish two review levels. The applicable level is displayed prominently on each platform’s review page.

3.1 Upgrading from Level 1 to Level 2

A Level 1 review can be upgraded to Level 2 at any time when direct system access is obtained. Where the hands-on assessment produces a different score to the desk review, we will update the comparison tables accordingly. This will be completed in one complete update, changing the review level from 1 to 2 in the comparison table.

We actively seek to move all platforms to Level 2 assessments as soon as possible.

3.2 Keeping Reviews Current

MRP platforms release updates frequently. Each platform record carries a “Last Reviewed” date. We aim to refresh reviews annually as a minimum, and sooner where a vendor communicates a material change to functionality. We openly encourage users and vendors to check the last reviewed date and report any discrepancies they may identify and we will aim to correct information as soon as possible.

4. Commercial Relationships & Partner Status

We believe that transparency about commercial relationships is the single most important step a comparison site can take to demonstrate independence. While we have added affiliate disclosures in footers and across our website, we publish relationship status as a data field at the top of our tables alongside each platform review.

⚠ Important Note: Vendor partners and referral partners may request changes to their feature ratings by providing access or evidence of the feature performing as expected against the criteria below. We will still seek to review this evidence and apply our methodology identically and their partner or affiliate status plays no role in influencing our feature rating. Where we identify any risk of bias in our own assessment, we will note this explicitly on the relevant review page.

If you are a vendor wishing to discuss a partnership or affiliate arrangement, you can find contact details on our website. We will always disclose the nature of any arrangement that exists at the time of review.

5. Ensuring Fairness, Consistency & Independence

5.1 Published Scoring Rubric

Every feature has a published definition in Section 7 of this document. The definition is the basis for feature rating – not a vendor’s marketing description of a feature, and not our impression of whether the feature is good. If a vendor’s implementation does not meet the stated definition, it does not score “Yes.”

5.2 Scope Boundary: Capability, Not Quality

Our Yes / Maybe / No / Paid framework answers answers whether we believe a platform can do something. It does not assess how well it does it, how pleasant the user interface is, or whether the implementation is best-in-class. Being explicit about this boundary is our credibility measure to ensure we are not overclaiming.

5.3 Internal Scoring Notes

For every feature score on every platform, we aim to keep research details internally, but this is not always possible. Where possible, this records the evidence source and our opinion and rationale for the rating applied. These notes allow our rating to be explained, defended, or corrected.

5.4 Versioned Methodology

This document carries a version number and a last-updated date. If we learn that a definition was ambiguous or a scoring principle needs refinement, we update the methodology, increment the version number, and record what changed. Platform scores affected by the change are reviewed and updated as soon as possible.

5.5 Vendor Correction Process

Vendors may submit a correction request if they believe a rating is inaccurate. To be considered, a correction request must:

– Identify the specific feature and the current rating
– Provide documented evidence (e.g. a link to official documentation, a system screenshot, or a recorded demonstration) that contradicts the current feature rating
– Be submitted via the Contact Us Form on our website

All correction requests are reviewed as soon as possible. Where evidence supports a change, the score is updated. We will not change a rating based on a vendor’s assertion alone, without supporting evidence.

5.6 User Error Reporting

Any user who identifies what they believe to be an error in our data is encouraged to report it via the Contact Us Form on our website. User-submitted corrections are investigated and responded to as soon as possible.

Note: Despite our best efforts, MRP platforms update frequently and some scores may lag the current state of a product. We always encourage users to verify key features directly with vendors before making a purchase decision. Our data is a starting point for evaluation, not a substitute for direct due diligence.

6. Platform Research Log

The table below records the current status of our research for each platform reviewed on MRP Comparison. It is updated each time a review is refreshed or upgraded.

Columns defined as follows:

Review Level: Level 1 (Desk Review) or Level 2 (Feature Assessed) — see Section 3.

Partner Status: None, Referral/Affiliate, or Partner — see Section 4.

Research Hours: Cumulative hours invested in researching this platform, including desk research, live testing, and vendor sessions.

Primary Sources: The main evidence sources used (e.g. vendor documentation, trial account, vendor demo, community forum).

Last Reviewed: The date on which the platform record was most recently reviewed or updated.

7. Feature Glossary & Definitions

The table below provides our definition for every feature assessed on MRPCompare. These definitions are the basis for our feature ratings.

Features are grouped into sections for navigational convenience. The section structure mirrors the layout of the comparison tables on the website.

8. Methodology Change Log