SAP alternative for biotech

Why life sciences companies are leaving SAP

SAP's 2027 ECC maintenance deadline is prompting many life sciences organizations to reassess their ERP strategy. Learn how SAP S/4HANA and NetSuite compare for mid-market biotech, pharma, and medical device companies.

Published Jul 22, 2026 · By Nitin Khanna

For 20 years, the ERP story in life sciences went one way: you started small, raised money, hit commercial scale, and graduated to SAP because SAP was what serious companies ran.

That story is falling apart fastest in the industries where SAP had the strongest hold to begin with, which is pharma, biotech, and medical devices. Last year my firm moved a $300 million therapeutics company off SAP and onto NetSuite as part of a PE carve-out from a large pharma parent, and the new standalone business now runs global financials, supply chain, and compliance across multiple countries and currencies on a cloud ERP the old playbook said it had outgrown. This year another client contracted with us to leave SAP ahead of the commercial launch of its RNA therapy, which includes bringing manufacturing in house. That client was paying roughly $650,000 a year on SAP, and 60% was maintenance and support. Meanwhile, the clinical-stage biotechs we put on NetSuite years ago keep asking us the same thing as they approach approval, which is whether they really have to move to SAP now, and increasingly we tell them they now have real options.

SAP sells several distinct products across very different company sizes, including Business One and Business ByDesign for smaller companies. This piece is about SAP's core enterprise product line, S/4HANA, and its ECC predecessor because that is where life sciences companies have historically landed once the old playbook said they had graduated to a serious ERP. SAP, for very large complex global manufacturers, is often the right one. But for a specific and growing slice of life sciences, roughly the companies between $25 million and $1 billion in revenue, choosing SAP by default is no longer the right answer, and the 2027 maintenance deadline is about to force a lot of CFOs to look at that mistake directly for the first time.

The deadline that starts the clock

SAP has confirmed that mainstream maintenance for Business Suite 7, which includes the SAP ECC 6.0 system most legacy customers still run, ends on December 31, 2027, with extended maintenance available through 2030 at a 2 percentage point premium on the maintenance base [1]. Compound that on top of SAP's annual 5% uplifts, and analysts peg the real cost of extension at a 9 to 12% total increase [2].

The deadline itself is agnostic about where you land, but it removes the option to sit still, because every ECC customer eventually has to reimplement or replatform something, and once that becomes true, the choice for a life sciences CFO stops being SAP versus the status quo and becomes SAP's current product, S/4HANA, versus everything else on the market.

S/4HANA versus NetSuite, on what actually matters

For a mid-market life sciences company, four things do most of the work in the platform decision: how long it takes to go live, what it costs over five years, how well it holds up under FDA scrutiny, and where each platform actually fits.

DimensionSAP S/4HANANetSuite
Time to implementTypically 6 to 18 months, longer for complex or private cloud deployments [11]Typically 3 to 6 months using preconfigured industry templates [10]
5 year TCO, ~50 user deploymentRoughly $1.5 million to $5 million or more [11]Roughly $350,000 to $700,000 [11]
Life sciences complianceDeep native capability, strongest at very large scale and complex process manufacturingFull regulatory compliance stack including 21 CFR Part 11, delivered through native platform features and validated SuiteApps [13]
Best fitGlobal enterprises, roughly $500 million or more, with complex multi-plant manufacturingMid-market, roughly $10 million to $500 million, prioritizing speed and a unified system [11]

The time and cost gap in that table has real consequences. A mid-market S/4HANA project usually runs two to four times longer than a comparable NetSuite deployment, and the 5 year TCO for a 50 user footprint runs several times higher [11]. That gap is amplified by SAP's own migration track record: a 2025 study of 200 SAP customers with more than €200 million in revenue found that only 8% of S/4HANA transformations completed on schedule, projects ran an average of 30% over their original timelines, and more than 60% exceeded their planned budgets [3]. ASUG's 2024 member research put the number of live S/4HANA users exceeding their original budgets at 49% [4]. For a company at commercial launch or fresh out of a carve-out, that gap translates directly into months of runway and millions of dollars that were supposed to fund the actual business, and once you have seen a launch delayed because the ERP was not ready, you stop treating implementation timelines as an IT problem.

The compliance point is the one most buyers get wrong. There is a persistent belief in this industry that a regulated life sciences company needs SAP to satisfy the FDA, and in our work, that has stopped being true. NetSuite handles the controls these companies actually get audited on, meaning electronic records and signatures aligned to 21 CFR Part 11, complete audit trails, batch and lot genealogy, and serialization, all delivered through a mix of native features and purpose-built SuiteApps and made defensible through a documented validation process [13]. Validation is a discipline that the partner ecosystem around NetSuite has been practicing on regulated life sciences implementations for years, and at this point the argument that only SAP can satisfy an FDA auditor is more habit than fact.

S/4HANA does still win at the top end, in the kind of complex process manufacturing environments with billions of transactions and hundreds of plants that its in-memory architecture was built to handle [12]. That advantage matters if you operate at that scale. Very few life sciences companies do, outside the top tier.

Where SAP breaks down first: carve-outs

The gap between the two platforms shows up most clearly in carve-outs, which have become the defining deal type in life sciences over the past several years. Bain's 2025 Global Healthcare Private Equity Report shows healthcare carve-outs on an upward trajectory since 2010, driven by public companies chasing focus and PE firms hunting for undermanaged assets [7]. McKinsey reported that medtech divestitures hit their highest level in a decade in 2025, with more revenue divested in that single year than in the previous six combined [8], and PwC expects more PE-led carve-outs of noncore franchises out of large pharma through the back half of 2026 [9].

Every one of these deals lands in the same place operationally. On Day 1 the carved-out business is running on the parent's SAP instance under a transition services agreement with a hard expiration and a monthly fee designed to push the buyer out, and what the new company needs is its own system, stood up fast, sized for a $100 million to $500 million business instead of a $50 billion one, with regulatory controls intact from the first transaction.

That is what our $300 million carve-out client was facing, and rebuilding the parent's SAP footprint at standalone scale would have eaten most of the TSA window and a real chunk of the deal's value creation thesis before the business ever got its own operational identity. NetSuite won on the time-to-value math, delivering a global multi-entity, multi-currency financial and supply chain backbone inside the TSA clock, on time and under budget. The PE operating partners we work with have picked up on this pattern, and on the last several carve-outs we have been part of, the platform decision was already made before finance was formally consulted.

Where SAP breaks down next: commercial launch

Our RNA therapy client is another version of the same pattern in a different setting. This is a company launching a novel therapy while standing up its own manufacturing, exactly the moment the old playbook said it required SAP, and it is moving from SAP to NetSuite to do it. At launch, what actually matters is speed, usability, and having one data model your finance team can work in without a training course to run month-end close. I have watched controllers at SAP shops spend more time working around the system than working in it, and on a lean finance team that adds up to the difference between a five-day close and a three-week one.

Who should still pick SAP, and who shouldn't

There is a case for SAP at the global top tier. Companies with tens of billions in revenue, hundreds of plants, and process manufacturing complexity that genuinely exhausts smaller platforms should still take SAP seriously, and no serious advisor would tell a Pfizer-scale plant network to run on NetSuite. SAP is also not sitting still on the mid-market. Grow with SAP is a real fixed-rate public cloud offering with fast technical go-lives and migration incentives to keep customers in the fold [10], and it belongs on the table in any honest evaluation.

Leaving SAP is also real work, meaning data migration, revalidation, retraining, historical reporting, integration rebuilds, and parallel run periods that apply no matter which direction you move.

None of this makes NetSuite universally better than SAP. What has shifted is the center of gravity in life sciences, which no longer sits at the top tier. It sits with the thousands of companies between $25 million and $1 billion in revenue that are the carve-outs, the first launches, and the specialty and platform companies, and for that segment, when a reimplementation is coming either way, the destination should have to win an open competition rather than get picked by default because the box says SAP. Run that comparison honestly, on time to value, total cost, compliance fit, and usability, and for a large and growing share of this market the answer the old playbook gave no longer holds up.

The graduation myth had a long run, and 2027 is when more companies are going to find out it was a myth all along.

References

Working Session

Is Your ERP Ready for the Next Stage of Growth?

Archer Insights works exclusively with life sciences and healthcare organizations, helping companies evaluate, implement, and optimize NetSuite across regulated environments, commercial launches, and private equity carve-outs.

Contact sales