INSIGHT

Upgrading From Microsoft Dynamics GP to Sage Intacct: What Finance Leaders Should Know

Jennifer Kinzel • June 18, 2026

Services: Sage Intacct

---

Microsoft Dynamics GP has served middle-market finance teams for decades. For many organizations, it was the right system at the right time: capable enough to outgrow QuickBooks, familiar enough to remain in place through years of growth. But the finance technology landscape has shifted.

Microsoft has announced that Dynamics GP support for product enhancements, regulatory updates, and technical support will end on December 31, 2029, with security updates available, if needed, until April 30, 2031. For finance leaders still running GP, that timeline makes a decision that many have been deferring increasingly hard to ignore.

Sage Intacct is a leading cloud financial management option for organizations making this move. Here is what to understand before you begin.

Why Organizations on Dynamics GP Are Making the Switch

The support timeline is the catalyst for many organizations, but it is not the only reason to reevaluate the system. Most finance teams that have outgrown GP can point to specific friction points that have been building for years:

• Multi-entity consolidations are handled manually, with separate company files that require significant effort to aggregate.
• Integrations with other business systems require custom development or third-party middleware.
• Reporting depends on workarounds and supplemental tools to produce the analysis modern finance teams need.
• Month-end close cycles tend to run longer than they should, given the manual processes involved.

Sage Intacct was built as a cloud-native platform, and the advantages that come with that architecture are built in rather than patched onto a legacy foundation. Organizations that migrate from Dynamics GP to Sage Intacct typically gain faster close cycles, consolidated multi-entity reporting without manual aggregation, and dashboards that reflect current financial data instead of static exports.

Key Differences Between Dynamics GP and Sage Intacct

Understanding the differences between the two platforms helps set realistic expectations for both the migration process and for daily finance operations after go-live.

Multi-Entity Accounting

Dynamics GP generally organizes financial data around individual company databases. If your organization operates across multiple entities, you may be managing separate databases and consolidating manually. Sage Intacct handles multi-entity accounting natively, with shared charts of accounts, intercompany eliminations, and consolidated reporting built into the platform rather than bolted on.

Reporting and Visibility

GP reporting often depends on Management Reporter, Excel, SQL Server Reporting Services, or third-party tools to produce more tailored outputs. Sage Intacct includes a reporting and dashboarding layer that finance teams can configure with less IT involvement, pulling from live data across dimensions like department, location, project, and fund.

AICPA Endorsement

Sage Intacct is recognized by the AICPA as a preferred provider of financial applications, a credential that reinforces the platform’s orientation toward accounting rigor and auditability. For finance leaders who prioritize compliance and audit readiness, it is a meaningful credential to be aware of when evaluating platforms.

What the Migration Process Involves

A GP to Sage Intacct migration requires deliberate planning. The two systems have different data structures, chart of accounts conventions, and module architectures, so a simple export-and-import project is not a realistic path.

The process typically involves several phases:

• Discovery and scoping: Mapping your current GP configuration, identifying which data needs to migrate, and establishing what the Sage Intacct build needs to accomplish for your organization.
• Chart of accounts redesign: Many GP users take this opportunity to clean up account structures that have accumulated over time. Sage Intacct’s dimension-based architecture often allows for a simpler, more flexible chart of accounts than GP requires.
• Data migration: Historical transaction data, open transactions, beginning balances, and vendor, customer, and dimension records all need to be extracted, cleaned, and imported. The scope of historical data migration is a key scoping decision.
• Configuration, integrations, and testing: Sage Intacct modules are configured to match your workflows, integrations are scoped and validated, and user acceptance testing is completed before go-live.
• Training and change management: Finance teams need time to get comfortable with the new interface, revised workflows, and cutover plan before go-live.

The GP to Sage Intacct implementation timeline and cost vary based on organizational complexity, the number of entities involved, historical data requirements, and the depth of integrations required. Straightforward migrations can often be completed in a few months; more complex builds take longer and carry proportionally higher investment.

What to Prepare Before You Start

A few decisions made early have a significant effect on how smoothly a migration goes.

Data Cleanup

GP databases that have been in use for years often contain duplicate vendors, inactive accounts, and inconsistent coding. Resolving these issues before migration reduces the risk of carrying problems into the new system. It also tends to surface process questions worth addressing before go-live, such as how vendor records are maintained or how accounts are structured, and these are easier to answer before you are working against a cutover deadline.

Reporting Requirements

Sage Intacct’s dimension framework gives you significant flexibility in how financial data is structured and reported, but that flexibility requires intentional design. Knowing what your finance team needs to see before configuration begins leads to a stronger build than retrofitting reporting after go-live. This includes standard financial statements as well as any operational reports, board packages, or departmental views your team produces on a recurring basis.

Historical Data Scope

Migrating full transaction history is time-consuming and not always necessary. Many organizations migrate open balances and a defined period of historical data, then archive GP for reference purposes. Deciding this early simplifies scoping and cost estimates, and it gives your implementation team a clear boundary to work within rather than an open question that can expand the project’s timeline and budget.

Working With BPM on Your GP to Sage Intacct Migration

BPM’s Sage Intacct services support organizations through the full transition from Dynamics GP to Sage Intacct, from initial scoping and data migration through configuration, testing, and go-live. For finance teams weighing the move or ready to begin planning, BPM can help assess your current environment and build a migration approach that fits your organization’s timeline and complexity.