ERP
ERPNext
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. · frappe.io
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
ERPNext at a glance
- Vendor
- Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates ERPNext 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. ERPNext is the free and open-source ERP from Frappe Technologies Pvt. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 26 Oct 2026 to 28 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 29 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
ERPNext is the free and open-source ERP from Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It scores highest on production and projects at 7-8 and on orders and inventory at 7, where judges cite purchase-to-pay documentation — accepted and rejected warehouses, serial and batch tracking, barcode capture at goods receipt, landed costs — and multi-level bills of materials with routings, workstation costing and enforced quality inspection. Integration and portability draw 6-8: GPL-3.0 licensing, documented self-hosting and site data exportable into other ERPNext instances earn credit, but no public API reference or webhooks appear on the captured pages. Sovereignty is the weakest criterion, with no score above 4: an Indian contracting entity under Indian law with Mumbai arbitration, data may be stored across the world, and offsite backups stored in India. Judges split on pricing transparency, 5 versus 6 — tiers from "$5 onwards /mo" to "$125 onwards /mo" against "onwards" scaling, resource limits and unpriced Starter Packs and Enterprise plans — and on production depth at 8 versus 7, with the same undocumented MRP runs and capacity planning weighed differently. One judge recorded zero across the board.
Speaks for it
- Purchase-to-pay chain documented from purchase order through goods receipt to invoice, with stock ledger entries and payables posting at each step
- Multi-level bills of materials documented with routings, workstations for costing and scheduling, scrap and by-products, and quality inspection that blocks submission
- Open source under GPL-3.0 with self-hosting on your own server and site data exportable in a format importable into other ERPNext instances
- Hosting priced publicly in three tiers — "$5 onwards /mo", "$20 onwards /mo" and "$125 onwards /mo" — with no per-user pricing and no fee for the software itself
- Three go-live routes described: self-implementation from documentation, guides and videos, Starter Packs from certified partners, and a network of 200+ partners
Held against it
- Contracting entity is Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Indian law with arbitration in Mumbai, data may be stored across the world, and offsite backups are stored in India
- We found no public information on GoBD compliance, XRechnung or ZUGFeRD, dunning or bank feeds, while the documented e-invoicing covers India's GST system
- The DATEV export and tax-consultant hand-off come from a third-party marketplace app whose listing notes it is not approved or endorsed by DATEV eG
- We found no public information on sales-side picking, shipping labels, storage bins or connectors for shops and marketplaces
- Plans are "onwards" prices with resource limits set at Frappe's discretion, pricing may be modified at its sole discretion, and Starter Packs and Enterprise plans are unpriced
Best for
- You run discrete manufacturing and need documented multi-level bills of materials with routings, workstation costing and enforced quality inspection
- You have a tech team and value a GPL-3.0 system you can self-host, with site data exportable into other ERPNext instances
- Your operation centres on goods receipt — barcode scanning, serial and batch tracking, accepted and rejected warehouses
- You want to avoid per-user licence costs and pay only for hosting
Avoid if
- You need an EU legal and hosting chain for your commercial records — the terms place the contract with Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Indian law with Mumbai arbitration, and the privacy policy says data may be stored across the world with offsite backups in India
- You require a committed availability guarantee — the terms state Frappe does not guarantee uninterrupted access
- You close German books needing GoBD documentation or XRechnung and ZUGFeRD — the captured e-invoicing pages cover India's GST e-invoice, and we found no public information on these German requirements
- You must compute your full first-year cost before committing — the tiers are "onwards" prices with resource limits at Frappe's discretion, pricing may be modified at its sole discretion, and Starter Packs and Enterprise plans are unpriced
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Finance, tax & compliance | 3 of 5 |
| Purchasing, inventory & order processing | 3.5 of 5 |
| Manufacturing, services & projects | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integration, API & data portability | 3.5 of 5 |
| Rollout, roles & operations | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3 of 5 |
Finance, tax & compliance
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the ERP keeps books a tax adviser and an auditor accept: general and subledgers, VAT per country, GoBD-compliant posting and archiving, e-invoices sent and received (XRechnung, ZUGFeRD), payments and dunning, and a DATEV export or a documented hand-over to the accountant.
0 — No accounting at all; invoices leave as PDFs and the books are kept somewhere else by hand.
3 — Invoices and credit notes are created in the system, but there is no ledger, no stated GoBD compliance and no export the accountant can import.
5 — Invoices, open items and payments in the system with a DATEV or accounting export, VAT rates per item, dunning, and e-invoices in XRechnung or ZUGFeRD format sent to customers.
8 — Full financial accounting or a live-synchronised one: general, receivables and payables ledgers, incoming e-invoices read and matched to purchase orders, bank feeds with payment matching, OSS and reverse-charge VAT, GoBD compliance stated with a procedure documentation, and several companies in one tenant.
10 — The money side closes inside the system: an auditor's GoBD or IDW PS 880 attestation published, consolidation and intercompany postings across entities, fixed assets and cost accounting, every posting traceable to the order, goods movement and user behind it, and period close with locked periods documented.
The Managing Director
The purchase-to-pay side is documented in real depth: invoices create payables, post stock and tax ledgers, feed a payment ledger used for reconciliation, with credit and debit notes, payment schedules, withholding tax and multi-currency, and a DATEV CSV export with a tax-consultant hand-off exists as a marketplace app. For my German books, though, I found no public information on GoBD compliance, dunning, bank feeds or XRechnung and ZUGFeRD — the e-invoice documentation covers India's GST e-invoicing. 1 7 6 5 7
The Head of Finance
Supplier invoices post the way a bookkeeper expects: submission credits the payable, books expense, asset, stock and tax lines, updates billed quantities on the order and writes payment-ledger entries, with duplicate supplier invoice numbers rejected and payments, holds, debit notes and withholding handled from the invoice. A marketplace DATEV app exports general-ledger entries in DATEV CSV and mails vouchers to the tax adviser's DATEV Unternehmen Online, and multi-subsidiary books, multi-currency with stored exchange rates and fixed assets are listed on the homepage. I found no public information on GoBD or a procedure documentation, on XRechnung or ZUGFeRD, on dunning or on bank-statement matching, and the e-invoicing pages cover the Indian IRN process — so German books close here only with add-ons. 1 5 7 6
The Operations Lead
The ledger machinery is genuinely documented — general ledger, payables and receivables, payment entries with reconciliation and payment orders, multi-currency with stored exchange rates, cost centers, fixed assets, and perpetual inventory that debits Stock In Hand in the books — plus a marketplace app that exports DATEV CSV and sends vouchers to DATEV Unternehmen Online for my tax consultant. The e-invoicing documented here is India's IRN system, however, and we found no public information on GoBD, XRechnung or ZUGFeRD, dunning or bank feeds, so I could not hand my auditor a German-compliance story from these pages. 1 7 5 6
The Online Retailer
The purchase-invoice mechanics are properly documented — submission credits the supplier, posts tax and charge ledgers and writes payment-ledger entries — and the homepage claims general ledger, payables and receivables, fixed assets, multi-currency and multi-subsidiary accounting. A DATEV export and a hand-off to the tax consultant's DATEV system exist through a marketplace app whose own listing notes it is not approved or endorsed by DATEV eG. We found no public information on GoBD compliance, OSS or reverse-charge VAT, dunning, or XRechnung/ZUGFeRD e-invoices — the e-invoicing documentation covers India's GST e-invoice — so my cross-border VAT question stays open. 7 1 5 5 6
The IT Integrator
Purchase invoices are documented posting properly — crediting the supplier payable, posting taxes, creating payment ledger entries — with perpetual inventory keeping stock value in sync with the general ledger, and a marketplace app exports DATEV CSV and sends vouchers to DATEV Unternehmen Online. The e-invoicing captured is India's GST system, and we found no public information on GoBD compliance, XRechnung or ZUGFeRD, dunning or bank feeds; the DATEV app itself is noted as not approved or endorsed by DATEV eG. 7 8 5 6 1
The Skeptic
The ledger mechanics are genuinely documented: purchase invoices credit payables, post taxes and write payment ledger entries, stock value syncs to the general ledger, and multi-currency and accounting dimensions are spelled out. A DATEV hand-off to the tax consultant exists, but it comes from a marketplace app whose listing notes it is not approved or endorsed by DATEV eG. We found no public information on GoBD compliance, XRechnung or ZUGFeRD formats, dunning or bank feeds; the e-invoicing documented is India's GST system. 1 5 6 7
Purchasing, inventory & order processing
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The goods chain from supplier to customer: quotes, orders and order confirmations, purchasing and goods receipt, stock per warehouse and bin, batch and serial numbers, picking and shipping, returns — and whether each step posts through to the next document and to the ledger instead of being retyped.
0 — No order or stock handling; the product is a contact list or an invoicing tool.
3 — Items with a stock count and an order list, but purchasing, goods receipt and delivery are not connected and stock is corrected by hand.
5 — Quote, order, delivery note and invoice as one document chain, purchase orders with goods receipt booking stock, and stock levels with reorder points per item.
8 — Several warehouses and storage bins, batch and serial number tracking, mobile picking and scanning, carrier and shop or marketplace connections, returns with restocking and credit note, drop shipping, and stock valuation that flows into the books.
10 — The goods chain runs and is evidenced in the system: demand-driven purchasing proposals, EDI with suppliers and customers, fulfilment and multi-channel stock allocation, best-before and recall traceability per batch from supplier to customer, and every movement attributed and dated.
The Managing Director
The chain from purchase order through goods receipt to invoice is documented with stock ledger postings, accepted and rejected warehouses, serial and batch tracking, barcode capture, quality gates, returns, landed costs and perpetual inventory keeping warehouse value in step with the general ledger — exactly the wiring I need so nothing gets retyped. I found no public information on storage bins, mobile picking, or carrier and shop connectors, which matters to me with a shop backend nobody reconciles. 1 7 8 7 8
The Head of Finance
The purchase chain posts through end to end: purchase orders with an enforceable order-required policy, goods receipts writing stock-ledger entries into accepted and rejected warehouses with serial and batch control and barcode identification, then the invoice creating the payable, with partial receipts, partial invoices, returns, retained samples, landed-cost vouchers and perpetual inventory keeping warehouse value in step with the general ledger. I found no public information on the sales-side document chain, storage bins, reorder points, carrier or shop connections or drop shipping, which is what holds this below the fuller level. 8 7 8
The Operations Lead
Goods receipt is the best-documented part: a receipt booked with barcode scanning into separate accepted and rejected warehouses, serial numbers and batches per row, a stock ledger entry on submit, controlled over-receipt blocking, mandatory quality inspection, retain-sample and a purchase return created from the submitted receipt — exactly the scanner-at-the-dock process I demand. The purchase order to receipt to invoice chain posts through with partial receipts, partial invoicing and open-item statuses, and stock valuation syncs to the general ledger. We found no public information on storage bins, mobile picking, reorder points or demand-driven purchase proposals, and the sales-side picking and shipping chain is not documented on these pages. 8 8 7
The Online Retailer
The goods-in chain is documented end to end: purchase orders received into separate accepted and rejected warehouses, serial and batch numbers, barcode scanning at the receiving desk, purchase returns, retain samples and landed costs, with every submission posting stock ledger entries and keeping warehouse value in sync with the general ledger. What holds the score down for me is the customer side: the captured pages give no public information on connectors for Shopware, Amazon or eBay, nor on picking, shipping labels or customer returns — exactly where I oversold my bestseller twice. 8 8 7 7 1
The IT Integrator
The supplier chain is documented end to end: purchase orders are received into separate accepted and rejected warehouses posting stock ledger entries, receipts flow into invoices that create the payable, with batch and serial tracking, barcode scanning, returns, subcontracting and stock valuation posting into the books. The customer side is thinner in the captured pages — sales invoicing appears mainly in the e-invoice documentation — and we found no public information on reorder points, bin storage, carrier or shop connections, or picking and shipping. 8 8 7 1
The Skeptic
The buying chain is documented in real depth: purchase orders, receipts into separate accepted and rejected warehouses, serial and batch tracking, barcode capture at the receiving desk, quality gates that block submission, returns and landed costs, each step posting stock and general ledger entries. The selling half of the chain — quotes, sales orders, picking, shipping — appears only as names in a module list, and we found no public information on reorder points or delivery documents. 1 8 7 8
Manufacturing, services & projects
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The depth for the buyer's own business model: bills of materials, work orders and capacity planning for manufacturers; projects, time, resources and milestone billing for service firms; contracts, subscriptions and field service. A product is judged on the models it says it serves.
0 — Nothing beyond trading goods; no bills of materials, projects or service billing.
3 — A simple kit or set of items, or a project tag on invoices, but no production orders, no time recording and no planning.
5 — For at least one model a working core: bills of materials with production orders consuming stock, or projects with time recording and billing from logged hours, with the supported models named on the vendor's pages.
8 — Multi-level bills of materials with routings, work centres and capacity planning, or projects with budgets, resource planning, milestone and recurring billing, and service or maintenance contracts — with costs flowing to cost accounting.
10 — Industry depth documented for the models served: MRP runs with material and capacity planning, shop-floor data capture and quality checks, variant configuration, or full professional-services automation with utilisation, contracts and revenue recognition — each described with its limits in public documentation.
The Managing Director
Multi-level bills of materials with routings, workstations, operation costing, configurable consumption, scrap handling and variant templates are documented in the vendor's own manuals, with work orders and job cards referenced — a working manufacturing core well beyond a simple kit. I found no public information on capacity planning detail or MRP runs, and projects appear only as a link on a bill of materials. 1 9 9
The Head of Finance
The manufacturing documentation is deep and states its own limits: multi-level bills of materials with routings, workstations defined for costing and work-order scheduling, job cards, backflush consumption, scrap and process-loss handling, enforced quality inspection, variant templates and BOM costing from valuation rates and operation costs, all attributable through cost centres, projects and branches. I found no public information on MRP runs or capacity planning, and projects appear only as a module name and a costing link on the bill of materials. 9 9 1
The Operations Lead
The bill of materials documentation is deep enough to plan real production: multi-level BOMs with exploded materials, routings via the Routing master, workstations used for costing and work order scheduling, operation costs rolling into an automatically updated BOM cost, scrap and by-products, process loss items, stage-by-stage semi-finished goods, alternative items and BOM templates for variants — and the BOM locks after submission, which my planner will appreciate. We found no public information on an MRP run or capacity planning, so planning next week still needs a human at the work order screen. Projects appear only as a module name, a costing link and an accounting dimension. 9 9 1
The Online Retailer
Bills of materials are documented in real depth — multi-level with routings, workstations used for costing and work-order scheduling, automatic raw-material consumption on completion, scrap and process-loss items, and quality inspections that block submission — well beyond a simple kit. We found no public information on capacity planning or MRP runs, and projects appear only as links and accounting dimensions rather than as time recording and billing. 9 9 1 7
The IT Integrator
As a manufacturer I see real depth: multi-level bills of materials with routings and workstations used for costing and scheduling, phantom and template BOMs for variants, scrap and by-products, semi-finished goods produced at each operation, and quality inspection that blocks submission when required. We found no public information on MRP runs, capacity planning or shop-floor data capture beyond named Job Cards, and projects appear only as a module name and a costing link on the bill of materials. 9 9 1
The Skeptic
The bill of materials documentation is the real thing — multi-level and phantom structures, routings and workstations, alternative items, variant templates, percentage quantities, scrap and by-products — and work orders consume stock on completion with quality inspection enforced on raw materials and finished goods. We found no public information on capacity planning or MRP runs, and the projects and services model appears only as a module name with a project link on the BOM. 1 9 9
Integration, API & data portability
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the ERP connects and how the data gets in and out: a public API reference, webhooks, standard connectors for shops, marketplaces, banks, payroll, DATEV and BI, data import from the previous system, and a documented full export when the company leaves.
0 — No API, no import and no export beyond printing.
3 — CSV import and export of some lists, a few named integrations, but no public API documentation and no full export.
5 — A documented REST or OData API, CSV or Excel import for master data and open items, and standard connectors to common shops, banks and DATEV.
8 — A public, versioned API reference covering all main objects with webhooks, a connector marketplace, a documented migration path from named predecessor systems, and a full data export of master data, documents and postings available to the customer.
10 — Open by design and evidenced: complete API coverage with sandbox tenants and rate limits stated, open data formats or open-source code, a contractual exit with export format and timeline, and self-hosting or on-premise as a documented alternative to the vendor's cloud.
The Managing Director
The whole product is open source under GPL-3.0 with self-hosting on my own server documented, site data can be exported in a format that imports into another ERPNext instance, a RESTful API and an app marketplace are stated, and a marketplace connector for DATEV exists. I found no public information on a published API reference, webhooks, or a documented migration path from named predecessor systems. 1 2 3 4 5
The Head of Finance
Exit and openness are the strongest part: the software is GPL-3.0 and self-hosting on your own server with installation scripts is a documented route, site data exports in a format importable into another ERPNext instance, and there is an app marketplace carrying connectors such as DATEV. The homepage claims an API-first RESTful design, but I found no public API reference, webhooks, sandbox or rate-limit details on the captured pages. 2 4 1 3
The Operations Lead
Open source under GPL-3.0 with a documented self-hosting path via installation scripts is the strongest portability position a buyer can get, and a site export in a format importable into other ERPNext instances is documented for the customer to run. A RESTful API is claimed and a marketplace with apps such as the DATEV integration exists, but the captured pages show no public API reference, no webhooks and no import tooling for master data from a previous system. 1 2 4 3
The Online Retailer
The system is open by construction: free and open source under GPL-3.0 with documented self-hosting on your own server, a RESTful API with a marketplace of apps, and site data exportable in a format that imports into another instance of ERPNext. The captured pages stop short of a public API reference with webhooks, and I found no named connectors for shops, marketplaces or banks — the DATEV link arrives as a third-party marketplace app. 2 1 4 3 5
The IT Integrator
Data egress is the strong suit: the software is GPL-3.0 and self-hostable on our own servers, the terms promise ERPNext site exports in a format importable into other ERPNext instances, and a marketplace carries connectors such as the DATEV app. The homepage claims an API-first RESTful design, but we found no public API reference, webhooks, sandbox tenants or a documented migration path from a predecessor system in the captured pages. 2 4 1 3
The Skeptic
"API-first" and "RESTful API" are homepage bullets — we found no public information on a documented API reference, versioning or webhooks. What is documented is stronger where it counts for an exit: the software is GPL-3.0 licensed, can be deployed on your own server, and hosted site data may be exported in a format importable into other instances of ERPNext, with a marketplace of third-party apps alongside. 1 2 3 4
Rollout, roles & operations
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What it takes to go live and run the system: implementation path (self-service, vendor, partner network), onboarding and training, roles and permissions, audit log, updates and customisation that survive them, support channels and service levels, and availability.
0 — No information on implementation, roles, support or availability.
3 — A contact form and a help page, but no stated implementation path, no role model and no support terms.
5 — A described onboarding or implementation offer, user roles with permissions, a help centre with current documentation, and support channels with hours.
8 — Implementation methods with typical duration stated, a certified partner network or vendor services listed, fine-grained permissions with a change log, customisation without code that survives updates, and published service levels for support and availability.
10 — Operations are evidenced: a status page with uptime history, release notes and an update policy, a field-level audit trail, sandbox or test tenants, and support, training and implementation terms public enough to plan a go-live without a sales call.
The Managing Director
Three go-live routes are described — self-implementation with free documentation, Starter Packs from certified partners and a network of 200-plus partners — alongside granular roles, approval workflows, a low-code builder and support governed by a published service level agreement through the support portal. No typical implementation duration is stated anywhere, and the terms state Frappe does not guarantee uninterrupted access, which I cannot accept blindly for a live wholesale operation. 1 2 3 3
The Head of Finance
Go-live paths are described — self-implementation with documentation, guides, videos and the community forum, Starter Packs through certified partners, and a 200+ partner network — with granular roles and permissions and approval workflows named, and support routed through a portal governed by a published support service-level agreement. I found no public information on implementation durations, a change log or an audit trail, and the terms themselves state Frappe does not guarantee uninterrupted access. 1 2 3
The Operations Lead
There is a real implementation story: self-implement with docs, guides and videos, Starter Packs from certified partners, a stated network of 200+ partners, granular roles and permissions, and multi-level approval workflows. Support runs exclusively through the support portal with response and resolution times governed by a published Support SLA page, but customisations are excluded from support, out-of-scope requests may be charged, and the terms state plainly that uninterrupted access is not guaranteed, with limited uptime guarantees on the Servers plan. We found no public information on implementation durations, a change log or a status page. 1 2 3 3
The Online Retailer
There is a genuine path to go live without a sales call — self-implementation with documentation, guides and videos, Starter Packs, certified partners in a network of more than 200, and granular roles with approval workflows. Support runs exclusively through the support portal with a service-level page referenced, but the terms state Frappe does not guarantee uninterrupted access, customisations are excluded from support, and we found no public information on implementation durations or a change and audit log. 2 1 3 3
The IT Integrator
Go-live is well served with self-implementation documentation, Starter Packs delivered by certified partners, a network of 200+ partners, granular roles and permissions with approval workflows, and a support portal governed by a published SLA for response and resolution times. We found no public information on an audit log, typical implementation durations or stated support hours, and the terms state Frappe does not guarantee uninterrupted access, with the entry server plan sold with limited uptime guarantees. 2 3 1 3
The Skeptic
Three implementation paths are on the page — self-implement from the documentation, Starter Packs from certified partners, and a network of 200+ partners — with granular roles and approval workflows claimed. Support runs exclusively through a portal whose response and resolution times are governed by a referenced SLA, but the terms also state services may be interrupted and uninterrupted access is not guaranteed, customisations are excluded from support, and out-of-scope requests may be charged. We found no public information on implementation duration or an audit log. 1 2 3 3
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where the ERP data — customers, suppliers, prices, postings, employees — is hosted, and who the subprocessors are (cloud infrastructure, email, support tooling, AI features). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; an ERP holds a company's entire commercial record, so the ownership chain counts, not only the server location.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy exists, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the processors behind the service are not named.
5 — EU hosting stated and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain (US hyperscaler, AI features, support or email tooling) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with locations, a data processing agreement offered, and an on-premise or EU-only hosting option stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, data export and deletion documented, and a certification such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5 published rather than implied.
The Managing Director
The contracting entity is Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Indian law with Mumbai courts and arbitration, and data may be stored worldwide with backups in India — for a system holding a company's entire commercial record, that is not a European chain. The mitigations are real: a data processing addendum on request, an EU and UK representative, a published processor list, ISO 27001 stated, and full self-hosting that would let me keep the data in my own environment. 2 3 4 3 4
The Head of Finance
The contracting entity is Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Indian law with Mumbai courts and arbitration, and the cloud stores data in locations across the world with offsite backups in India — not a chain I can hand three companies' commercial records to as it stands. The footholds are real, though: a documented self-hosting option under GPL-3.0 on your own servers, a data processing addendum available on request, a published processors list, a named EU/UK GDPR representative and a stated ISO 27001 compliance practice. 3 2 4 3
The Operations Lead
The contracting entity is Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Indian law with arbitration in Mumbai, data may be stored in locations across the world, and offsite backups sit in India — so the default cloud is not a European-hosted option. Some guardrails exist: a GDPR data processing addendum on request, a published list of processors, a named EU/UK representative, a stated ISO 27001 compliance, and the GPL-3.0 self-hosting path that would let me keep the entire commercial record on my own servers. Ownership beyond the entity itself is not stated on these pages. 3 4 3 2
The Online Retailer
The contracting entity is Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in India, governed by Indian law with arbitration in Mumbai, and the privacy policy says data may be stored in locations across the world with all offsite backups in India. Mitigations exist — a data-processing addendum on request, an EU/UK GDPR representative, a published processor list, and a documented self-hosting option on your own servers — but no EU-hosted offer from the vendor appears on the captured pages, and that is a real question mark for handing over my customer and price data. 4 3 4 2 3
The IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Indian law with Mumbai courts, data may be stored in locations across the world, and offsite backups are held in India — far from the European-sovereignty ideal for a system holding our entire commercial record. Partial mitigations are public: a GDPR data processing addendum available on request, an EU/UK representative, a processor list URL, ISO 27001 described in the terms, and GPL-3.0 self-hosting that lets me keep the data on our own EU infrastructure. 4 3 4 2 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Frappe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Indian law with arbitration in Mumbai, and data may be stored in locations across the world with offsite backups in India — for a European buyer that is the non-EU end of the chain, softened by a data processing addendum available on request, a named GDPR representative for the EU and UK, a processors list, and an ISO 27001 compliance claim. The strongest sovereign option is the escape hatch itself: GPL-3.0 licensed software you can deploy on your own server. 2 3 4
Pricing transparency
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a company can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per user, module, company or transaction volume, which modules (accounting, warehouse, production, POS) cost extra, implementation and onboarding fees, minimum term, and what happens to the data on cancellation.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call or a partner proposal.
3 — A starting price or "from" figure exists, but what is included and how it scales with users, modules or companies is unclear.
5 — Prices per edition or module are public with the main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (implementation, extra companies, warehouse or production module, API use) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with its scaling rule (per user, company or volume), onboarding and implementation packages priced, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given company size and module set, with every add-on, implementation, support and hosting cost and the cancellation and data-return terms published.
The Managing Director
The software itself costs nothing with every module in it, hosting tiers are published at "$5 onwards /mo", "$20 onwards /mo" and "$125 onwards /mo" exclusive of taxes, and I can end the service simply by discontinuing payment. But the "onwards" scaling rests on resource limits at Frappe's discretion, and Enterprise plans and the partner Starter Packs are unpriced sales conversations, so I still cannot compute our real first-year cost before signing. 1 2 3 3
The Head of Finance
Hosting is priced publicly with inclusions — sites at "$5 onwards /mo", servers at "$20 onwards /mo", dedicated at "$125 onwards /mo", all taxes exclusive — and the software itself carries no licence fee, so there are no per-user or per-module costs to compute. But these are "onwards" figures scaled by usage limits the vendor may set at its discretion, prices may be modified at its sole discretion, and I found no public figures for Starter Packs or Enterprise plans — so the true annual cost is not computable from public pages alone. 2 1 3 4
The Operations Lead
The model is refreshingly simple: the software itself carries no fee, there is no per-user pricing, and hosting starts at "$5 onwards /mo" for a single site, "$20 onwards /mo" for a server and "$125 onwards /mo" for a dedicated server, with payments exclusive of taxes and cancellation effective at the end of the current billing period. What I cannot compute from the public pages: implementation, since Starter Packs carry no published price and Enterprise plans are a conversation with solution consultants; the "onwards" figures also leave the resource scaling rule and marketplace app prices such as the DATEV integration unstated. 2 1 3
The Online Retailer
Hosting is priced publicly in three tiers — "$5 onwards /mo", "$20 onwards /mo" and "$125 onwards /mo" — with no per-user pricing and no fee for the software itself, which suits my worry about the bill jumping with order volume. But Enterprise plans are a conversation with solution consultants, Starter Pack implementation is unpriced, plans are "onwards" prices with resource limits set at Frappe's discretion, and pricing may be modified at Frappe's sole discretion — so the true annual cost is not fully computable from public pages. 2 1 3 3
The IT Integrator
The base model is unusually legible: no fee for the open-source software, no per-user pricing, hosting listed at $5 onwards /mo for a single site, $20 onwards /mo for servers and $125 onwards /mo for dedicated, payments stated exclusive of taxes, and cancellation by discontinuing payment at the end of the billing period. The real annual cost is still not computable, because these are onward prices with resource limits set at Frappe's discretion, pricing may be modified at its sole discretion, and Starter Packs, Enterprise plans and marketplace apps are unpriced in the captured pages. 2 3 1 3
The Skeptic
The software itself is priced at zero with no per-user fees — you pay only hosting, with tiers listed from $5, $20 and $125 a month, taxes stated as exclusive, customer termination at the end of the billing period without notice, and hosted site data exportable in a format importable into other ERPNext instances. But "onwards" is doing heavy lifting: usage limits sit at the vendor's discretion and pricing may be modified at its sole discretion. Enterprise plans and partner Starter Packs — the day rates that decide the real project cost — sit behind a conversation with the solution consultants. 1 2 3 3 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about ERPNext
Is ERPNext European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies ERPNext as Rest of world.
Where does ERPNext store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
Does ERPNext have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 28 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to ERPNext?
As of 29 Oct 2026, the panel rates Odoo (4/5), weclapp (3.5/5) and Haufe X360 (3.5/5) highest among the other 13 ERP products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Odoo (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: ERPNext alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 26 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 8 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage frappe.io Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page frappe.io Checked 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Terms naming the legal entity docs.frappe.io Checked 28 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy docs.frappe.io Checked 28 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Finance, tax & compliance — found from sitemap docs.frappe.io Checked 28 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Finance, tax & compliance — found from sitemap docs.frappe.io Checked 28 Oct 2026 +2 earlier captures: 26 Oct 2026, 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Purchasing, inventory & order processing — found from sitemap docs.frappe.io Checked 28 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Purchasing, inventory & order processing — found from sitemap docs.frappe.io Checked 28 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 26 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Manufacturing, services & projects — found from sitemap docs.frappe.io Checked 28 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 26 Oct 2026 Details →