Most organisations do not have a software problem. They have a seams problem. Finance is in one system, people in another, stock in a third, and the work itself in a spreadsheet somebody maintains out of goodwill. Each is defensible on its own. Together they produce a month-end that takes two weeks and a set of numbers nobody fully believes.
The cost is not the licences. It is the re-keying, and what the re-keying does to trust. A goods receipt typed into the stock system and again into the ledger will disagree eventually — not often, but often enough that every figure now needs checking before it can be used. Once a number needs checking, it stops being a decision-making tool and becomes a research project.
Our products are sold separately and run separately. When you run more than one, they share a single database. That is the whole difference. A purchase order approved in procurement becomes a goods receipt, which creates the asset, starts its depreciation and posts the journal — without anyone typing it a second time, because there is no second place to type it into.
This also changes what a question costs. "What did the Lahore site spend on maintenance last quarter, and how much of it was unplanned?" spans procurement, facilities and the ledger. Across three systems that is an export, a lookup table and an afternoon. Across one it is a filter.
The honest trade is this: an integrated system asks you to accept one vendor's idea of how a purchase order relates to an asset. Best-of-breed lets you pick the strongest tool in each category and pay for the integration forever. We think the seams cost more than the category-level perfection is worth — but you should make that decision with the real number in front of you, which is the integration and reconciliation effort, not the licence fee.
Start with whichever product solves the loudest problem. The consolidation is there when you add the second one.