IFS Applications is presented by the vendor as an agile application suite that offers enterprise resource planning (ERP), enterprise asset management (EAM) and enterprise project management, handling 4 core processes: Service & Asset Management Full Enterprise Asset Management (EAM), Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) and Field Service Management (FSM) Manufacturing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) with support for process manufacturing, discrete manufacturing…
N/A
Infor VISUAL
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Infor VISUAL is an ERP software focused on manufacturing companies with business intelligence, planning and scheduling, and pricing, quoting, and estimating capabilities, among others.
N/A
Pricing
IFS Applications
Infor VISUAL
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IFS Applications
Infor VISUAL
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IFS Applications
Infor VISUAL
Features
IFS Applications
Infor VISUAL
Payroll Management
Comparison of Payroll Management features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
2.6
Ratings
94% below category average
Infor VISUAL
-
Ratings
Pay calculation
4.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Benefit plan administration
4.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Direct deposit files
3.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Customization
Comparison of Customization features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
8.5
Ratings
11% above category average
Infor VISUAL
1.0
Ratings
153% below category average
API for custom integration
8.50 Ratings
1.00 Ratings
Plug-ins
8.50 Ratings
00 Ratings
Security
Comparison of Security features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
9.7
Ratings
17% above category average
Infor VISUAL
9.0
Ratings
10% above category average
Single sign-on capability
10.00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Role-based user permissions
9.50 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Reporting & Analytics
Comparison of Reporting & Analytics features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
7.8
Ratings
8% above category average
Infor VISUAL
4.0
Ratings
57% below category average
Dashboards
7.00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Standard reports
7.50 Ratings
2.00 Ratings
Custom reports
9.00 Ratings
2.00 Ratings
General Ledger and Configurable Accounting
Comparison of General Ledger and Configurable Accounting features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
7.4
Ratings
4% below category average
Infor VISUAL
7.4
Ratings
4% below category average
Accounts payable
9.00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Accounts receivable
9.00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Global Financial Support
9.00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Primary and Secondary Ledgers
8.50 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Journals and Reconciliations
8.00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Configurable Accounting
8.50 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Standardized Processes
9.00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Inventory Management
Comparison of Inventory Management features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
8.6
Ratings
8% above category average
Infor VISUAL
8.0
Ratings
1% above category average
Inventory tracking
8.50 Ratings
6.00 Ratings
Automatic reordering
9.00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Location management
9.00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Order Management
Comparison of Order Management features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
5.4
Ratings
37% below category average
Infor VISUAL
9.7
Ratings
21% above category average
Pricing
8.00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Order entry
8.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Credit card processing
6.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Cost of goods sold
6.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Order Orchestration
6.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Subledger and Financial Process
Comparison of Subledger and Financial Process features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
3.4
Ratings
75% below category average
Infor VISUAL
8.6
Ratings
14% above category average
Billing Management
6.50 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Cash and Asset Management
7.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Travel & Expense Management
7.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Budgetary Control & Encumbrance Accounting
6.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Period Close
8.50 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Project Financial Management
Comparison of Project Financial Management features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
2.7
Ratings
95% below category average
Infor VISUAL
7.2
Ratings
6% below category average
Budgeting and Forecasting
3.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Project Costing
6.00 Ratings
5.00 Ratings
Cost Capture
5.00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Capital Project Management
2.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Customer Contract Compliance
2.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Project Revenue Recognition
2.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Project Execution Management
Comparison of Project Execution Management features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
3.6
Ratings
63% below category average
Infor VISUAL
3.0
Ratings
79% below category average
Project Planning and Scheduling
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Task Insight for Project Managers
9.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Project Mobile Functionality
8.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Definable Resource Pools
8.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Grants Management
Comparison of Grants Management features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
10.0
Ratings
30% above category average
Infor VISUAL
-
Ratings
Award Lifecycle Management
10.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Procurement
Comparison of Procurement features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
3.3
Ratings
71% below category average
Infor VISUAL
-
Ratings
Bids Analyzed and Compared
8.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Contract Authoring
7.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Contract Repository
7.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Requisitions-to-Purchase Orders Integrated
9.50 Ratings
00 Ratings
Supplier Management
9.50 Ratings
00 Ratings
Risk Management
Comparison of Risk Management features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
4.6
Ratings
35% below category average
Infor VISUAL
-
Ratings
Risk Repository
8.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Control Management
8.50 Ratings
00 Ratings
Control Efficiency Assessments
8.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Issue Detection
6.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Remediation and Certification
7.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Logistics
Comparison of Logistics features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
6.3
Ratings
6% below category average
Infor VISUAL
-
Ratings
Transportation Planning and Optimization
7.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Transportation Execution Management
7.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Trade and Customs Management
6.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Fulfillment Management
5.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Warehouse Workforce Management
8.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Manufacturing
Comparison of Manufacturing features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
6.2
Ratings
18% below category average
Infor VISUAL
3.2
Ratings
79% below category average
Production Process Design
8.50 Ratings
2.00 Ratings
Production Management
8.00 Ratings
5.00 Ratings
Configuration Management
7.50 Ratings
5.00 Ratings
Work Execution
8.50 Ratings
2.00 Ratings
Manufacturing Costs
9.00 Ratings
2.00 Ratings
Supply Chain
Comparison of Supply Chain features of Product A and Product B
IFS Applications
8.5
Ratings
18% above category average
Infor VISUAL
2.0
Ratings
112% below category average
Forecasting
7.50 Ratings
00 Ratings
Inventory Planning
9.00 Ratings
2.00 Ratings
Performance Monitoring
9.00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Product Lifecycle Management
Comparison of Product Lifecycle Management features of Product A and Product B
Not every Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System does not cover all the industry verticals and all the functionalities and requirements for a specific industry as built-in features. Although IFS Applications does not completely cover all the requirements and all the industry verticals, it can be implemented for any industrial company with minimum configurations and customization, which is very good when implementing an ERP system. Since it supports web and mobile versions of the application as well, the users ind it easy to use.
The original version of Visual Manufacturing (Lilly Software) was intended for mechanical manufacturing. It was adapted at our facility (we were not the first) to accomodate electronic manufacturing. For electronic manufacturing process control it is not ideal when referencing in-line or custom processes used to build product. For material control it is excellent unless a modification to a standard product is required (and we did this on 60% of product going out the door). The co-product feature that removes material from an assembly requires the creator of the work order to calculate the percentage of cost the removed items are from the completed product. On the business operations side regional tax reports were difficult to extract and an external module to go into the data base and extract that had to be created. The system itself was stable for the most part. Occasional "data collisions" corrupted transactions at times. The accounting procedures in place found them by the end of the month .where they were corrected. For a small business with less formal processes Infor Visual can be used with little training for the operators. If the processes need a higher level of accountability and control the processes can be formalized with workflow scripts to ensure that higher level of control.
At times a "shadow part" is necessary in the manufacturing process. This shadow part does not require an inventory transaction but is made a as a separate process - sometimes out of sequence to the general process flow. Infor Visual ver 6.3.5 does not have that capability.
When generating forms for business and manufacturing operations Infor Visual ver 6.3.5 has a limited number of options. To change or add forms requires an unsupported editor. When the stock and custom options are depleted an outside programming module is required as well as programmers to develop the forms.
While free software upgrades to the main operations modules have been part of the maintenance agreement. One upgrade required database and hardware support not justifiable for the current business model. The system was frozen at the current version at that time.
There is no easy way to differentiate between engineering documentation and production documentation.
Good Technical and Customer Support during and after implementation tasks. Good Project Plan and Management support for implementation and post implementation. Financial functionality could be more comprehensive particularly with Budgeting and Cash Management. Inventory Management capability was adequate but could be more comprehensive as well. "Out of the Box" functionality was adequate but requested add-ons and enhancements seemed to be a bit pricey.
In overall, the companies get many advantages, where we can forget most of the things which can be considered for room for improvement. The user interface is good. It supports mobile versions an has several mobile applications for specific areas with Android, IOS and Windows versions. It allows several deployment options such as remote hosting, IFS Cloud hosting and on-premise hosting of the servers. IFS Applications can be easily and safely integrated with other systems.
We have been unable to get answers to our questions, solutions to our problems, and they don't seem interested in working in the construction industry.
Could have used more hands-on approach. There are multiple webinars and information sessions but until you actually use the system, these are not very helpful.
Microsoft AX, QAD (in continuation of our previous ERP), Sage X3 was an out of the box ERP that was part of initial RFP. We have chosen IFS based on the compromise between costs & budget, functionality, technical features, and feedback from similar customers that gave their feedback. The project manager team and qualification level of technical or consultant teams were differentiating factors too. Finally IFS application was named in the Gartner’s mid-market ERP Magic Quadrant, along with SAP, and helped us to finalize our choice
We unfortunately did not evaluate any other ERP software. VISUAL was a legacy system and we determined that changing systems would be too difficult, and not cost effective. We reached out to our local VISUAL rep who knew how the software functioned, but not how to apply it more appropriately to our business model, so we continued on with what we had rather than looking elsewhere.