Inventory commitment and production commitment must agree
Katana's inventory material describes visibility across raw materials, finished goods, locations and channels. MRPeasy's manufacturing material describes BOM-linked routings, calendars and production planning. Those documented emphases suggest a useful shared test: two sales channels compete for stock while two jobs compete for one workstation. Ask each planner to explain both the allocated quantity and promised completion date. A visually clear stock position cannot establish a feasible production date; a scheduled job cannot establish that every needed component is available. Delay one receipt and remove part of a worker's availability. Inspect the changed promise and its reason in both proposed configurations. Do not infer that either candidate lacks the other's functions from this evidence. Judge whether the people making sales and production commitments can reach a consistent answer without keeping an informal priority list outside the system. Ask the warehouse and planner to approve the same promise after the disruption. Their agreement should come from the recorded allocation and production status, not a verbal priority that the next shift cannot retrieve.[Katana 1][MRPeasy 1]
Choose reporting detail the shop can actually maintain
Katana describes planning, scheduling and shop-floor execution for SMB manufacturing. MRPeasy's materials describe worker reporting, inventory booking and tracking, while its manual recommends a test task using the buyer's products. Use that practical method for both candidates. Include a subassembly, variable material use, a partial completion and unused components returned to stock. Have an operator perform the work without coaching from the sales presenter. Count unresolved questions and corrections rather than equating fewer clicks with better control. Then ask the planner what remains unfinished and the warehouse user what is available to ship. If outsourced work matters, include a partial supplier receipt and identify any additional process needed. The comparison should establish a reporting routine that survives a busy shift and staff turnover. A sophisticated plan becomes stale without timely actuals, while an easy completion button is unhelpful if it hides remaining material or rework.[Katana 2][MRPeasy 1][MRPeasy 2]
Inspect finance boundaries without assuming identical products
Katana lists connections to accounting and commerce tools. MRPeasy's manual lists an accounting section as well as operating functions. Neither statement settles which application should keep this buyer's statutory books or produce local outputs. Ask both implementers to name the owner of invoices, tax, receivables, inventory value and cost of sale. Complete an order, return part of it and introduce a supplier-cost change after receipt. Reconcile quantities and amounts in every application retained. Then fail an integration message once and retry it. The result must expose pending work and avoid duplicate postings in the demonstrated configuration. Confirm the actual subscription features, implementation assistance and support route used in the exercise. Also set a review trigger for growing complexity, such as another entity or more demanding traceability. The choice should reflect the present operating package and a credible transition path, without assuming either small-manufacturer label guarantees simple accounting or effortless growth.[Katana 1][Katana 2][MRPeasy 2]
Questions that separate the proposals
Who can explain the promised date?
Material allocation and capacity must agree.
Can operators report exceptions unaided?
A plan depends on usable actual reporting.
Which application owns financial records?
An accounting section or connector leaves scope questions.
What growth changes the operating design?
A new entity or tracking need may require revalidation.
Run the same comparative scenario
BUYER-CONTROLLED DEMONSTRATION
Competing orders and a corrected accounting handoff
Illustrative pilot: two channels need the same stock while one workstation and a delayed receipt constrain replenishment.
Proposed evaluation scenario. It is not a reported product test or customer result.- 01
Allocate stock and schedule both jobs.
Evidence to retain: Record priorities, calendars and promise reasons.
- 02
Delay supply and report a partial completion.
Evidence to retain: Show remaining work and changed availability.
- 03
Return unused material and part of a shipment.
Evidence to retain: Reconcile physical quantities and transaction identities.
- 04
Apply a late supplier cost and retry a failed transfer.
Evidence to retain: Match financial amounts without duplicate postings.
The documented emphases are useful discovery signals, not comparable operating results. A shared task must establish credible promises, practical reporting and a reconciled finance boundary.