Skip to main content

Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management

Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management at a glance
VendorMicrosoft Corporation
HeadquartersRedmond, Washington, USA
OwnershipPublicly listed (NASDAQ: MSFT)
DeploymentCloud/SaaS on Microsoft Azure (on-premises variant legacy-only)
Target marketLarge enterprises and upper mid-market, especially Microsoft-stack organizations
IndustriesManufacturing, distribution, retail, professional services, public sector
PricingFinance 210 USD/user/month, Finance Premium 300 USD/user/month, billed annually (Microsoft US price list, as of August 2026); Supply Chain Management priced the same, discounted attach licenses for second app
Websitemicrosoft.com/en-us/dynamics-365/products/finance

The short version

Financial management is the job Dynamics 365 Finance was built for, and it rarely travels alone: the sibling application, Dynamics 365 Supply Chain Management, carries the operational side of the house. Both run as SaaS on Microsoft Azure, both belong to the wider Dynamics 365 family, and among US upper-mid-market and enterprise organizations already committed to Azure, Microsoft 365, and the Power Platform, the pairing shows up on more shortlists than almost any other ERP option.

How it is sold

Delivery is SaaS on Azure with continuous updates. Unusually for enterprise ERP, Microsoft publishes its list prices: as of August 2026, Dynamics 365 Finance costs $210 per user per month, Finance Premium $300, billed annually, and Supply Chain Management carries identical list prices. A user licensed for a second Finance and Operations app pays a discounted attach rate. None of that covers implementation services, ISV add-ons, or Azure consumption, which all land on top of the license line.

Where Dynamics 365 Finance comes from

Microsoft bought its way into ERP. Great Plains arrived in 2001, Navision in 2002, and with Navision came Axapta, the product Microsoft went on to sell as Microsoft Dynamics AX. A cloud relaunch in 2016 renamed the line Dynamics 365 for Finance and Operations; a later split produced two separately licensable applications, Finance and Supply Chain Management.

An on-premises variant survives for existing customers, but new purchases are effectively cloud-only, and the roadmap, Copilot AI assistants included, is written cloud-first. Worth clarifying early: Dynamics 365 Business Central is a different product on a different codebase, aimed at small and midsize companies.

Modules and capabilities

Finance covers general ledger, accounts payable and receivable, budgeting, fixed assets, tax, and multi-entity, multi-currency accounting for international organizations. Supply Chain Management contributes inventory, procurement, warehouse management (WMS), production control with MRP and the Planning Optimization service, and asset management.

Reporting and low-code extension work stay inside the Microsoft ecosystem: Power BI, the Power Platform, and Dataverse integrate natively, and standard connectors tie the ERP apps to the Dynamics 365 customer engagement (CRM) applications.

Who buys it

Large enterprises and the upper mid-market, mostly organizations already standing on Microsoft infrastructure. Manufacturing, distribution, retail, professional services, and the public sector supply most of the reference base, and analysts have rated Microsoft a leader in both service-centric and product-centric cloud ERP. Given the size of the US partner network, implementation capacity is rarely the constraint. Partner quality is, and it varies enough to decide project outcomes on its own.

The case for and against

The case for: ecosystem fit. A company committed to Azure, Microsoft 365, and the Power Platform removes a layer of integration work that any non-Microsoft ERP would create, and its IT team inherits tooling it already operates. Published list pricing is the second, quieter advantage; during early budgeting, most competitors respond to price questions with a quote form.

The case against starts with structure. The ERP footprint spans two separately licensed applications, so license modeling is more granular than a single-suite comparison suggests, and deep industry functionality often arrives through ISV add-ons that carry their own evaluation and licensing effort. Where the requirements are mostly standard financials and no Microsoft platform commitment exists to justify the weight, Business Central or a mid-market cloud suite is usually the better-sized answer. One research note: older material about Dynamics AX or Finance and Operations describes this same product line under earlier names.

What the Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management website looks like

Current view of the vendor homepage, captured by our editorial team.

Screenshot of the Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management vendor homepage

Comparable products

Related Topics

User reviews for Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management

No published reviews for Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management on usa.erp-software.org yet.

Write the first review →

Share your experience with Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management

Reviews are checked editorially for plausibility before publication (usually 1–3 business days). Your email address is never published and is stored only as a hash. Fields marked * are required.

Frequently asked questions

Which organizations typically choose Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain Management?

The center of gravity is the upper mid-market and large enterprise, and the single best predictor is an existing Microsoft platform commitment. Where Azure, Microsoft 365, and the Power Platform are already set, the integration and tooling argument usually outweighs feature-level differences with rival suites. Manufacturing, distribution, retail, professional services, and public-sector organizations dominate the installed base.

What does Dynamics 365 Finance cost?

List prices are public, which is rare in this class. Budget $210 per user per month for Finance and $300 for Finance Premium, billed annually; Supply Chain Management is priced identically, and a discounted attach rate applies once a user holds a second Finance and Operations app. For planning purposes, treat the license line as a floor: implementation, ISV add-ons, and Azure consumption typically move the real annual figure well above it.

How long does a Dynamics 365 Finance and Supply Chain implementation take?

There is no vendor-standard timeline. Plan roughly six to nine months for a focused finance-first rollout and more than a year for multi-site programs with full supply chain and production scope, with entity count and ISV add-ons as the main stretch factors. Since partner quality swings outcomes, vet the implementation partner as rigorously as the software.

Is Dynamics 365 Finance the same product as Business Central?

No, and mixing them up skews any comparison. Business Central is a separate small-and-midsize product on its own codebase. Finance and Supply Chain Management descend from Dynamics AX, relaunched in the cloud in 2016 and later split into two applications, so anything you read about AX or Finance and Operations refers to this enterprise line.

Do we have to license both Finance and Supply Chain Management?

Only if your process scope demands it. Finance alone covers ledger, payables, receivables, budgeting, fixed assets, and tax; the moment inventory, procurement, warehousing, production with MRP, or asset management enters the picture, Supply Chain Management joins the bill, softened by the discounted attach license for a user's second app. Model that split early, because it makes the license structure more granular than one-suite competitors.

How well does it integrate with the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem?

This is the product's home turf: Power BI, Power Platform, Dataverse, and the Dynamics 365 CRM applications connect natively, and Copilot assistants ship inside both apps. The caveat sits at the industry edges, where depth frequently comes from ISV add-ons with their own licensing and their own evaluation effort.