Friedman Corporation

Name: Friedman Corporation
Brand: Friedman Corporation
Rating: 2.8 (2 reviews)

Friedman Corporation provides Frontier ERP, a configuration-centric enterprise resource planning suite for mid-size to large manufacturers of complex, custom products. It integrates product configuration and quoting with order management, production planning, shop-floor execution, and financials, with on-prem or hosted options on an IBM i–based architecture.

Est 1980

LinkedIn 3K|Website|FTEs 75|HQ Chicago, Illinois, US

MarketsERP

01Common complaints

- Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient - Startups and small manufacturers (for example, fewer than ~50–75 employees) that require rapid deployment and low administrative overhead may find Frontier’s implementation and platform requirements disproportionate. - Industries or use cases where competitors are more suitable - Highly regulated environments that require publicly visible compliance documentation (SOC 2/ISO/HIPAA) may prefer vendors with more extensive publicly documented compliance artifacts. - Technical requirements that are not clearly addressed in public documentation - Organizations that require turnkey SaaS-native capabilities (for example, SCIM provisioning, published encryption/audit documentation, and published uptime SLAs) should validate these requirements directly with the vendor, as public documentation reviewed did not make them explicit. - Budget constraints - Organizations seeking transparent, low-end pricing may consider alternatives such as Odoo or Business Central, since Frontier’s pricing appears to be sales-led and not publicly listed. - Specific workflows or integrations where other vendors may have advantages - If a procurement requirement includes a large marketplace of prebuilt connectors and an extensive partner ecosystem, NetSuite, Dynamics, or Acumatica may outperform Frontier in out-of-the-box integrations. - Red flags in the evaluation process - Examples of procurement red flags include inability to provide: - Clear security documentation and third-party audit reports - Multiple current customer references in the buyer’s industry - A realistic implementation plan with resourcing requirements and timelines - Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor - Vendor materials emphasize stability and operational security, but explicit limitations are not clearly documented on the pages captured. - Features on the roadmap (not yet available) - Roadmap details were not clearly documented in the sources captured. - Scale limitations - The vendor claims the solution supports a wide range of company sizes, but buyers should validate scalability with reference architectures, workload benchmarks, and customer references. - Security or compliance gaps - The primary gap identified in public documentation is the lack of clearly published third-party security certifications and compliance statements. - API limitations or integration constraints - Reporting access via ODBC is explicitly referenced; modern API-first integration documentation (REST, webhooks) was not clearly found in the public materials reviewed.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Requirement for publicly documented SOC 2/ISO certifications as a mandatory procurement gate
Need for a highly standardized, commodity ERP with extensive off-the-shelf integrations
Very small manufacturers seeking a low-cost SaaS ERP with minimal implementation overhead

03Field reports

- Review-platform availability and limitations - G2 has a Frontier product page with very low review volume (2 reviews) and a 2.8/5 overall score at the time captured, which makes statistical conclusions unreliable. - A Frontier-specific listing was not located on Gartner Peer Insights in the captured sources (possible naming or category mismatch, or limited coverage). - TrustRadius did not show a Frontier ERP review page in the captured sources. - G2 review evidence (positive and negative) - One G2 review snippet appears to describe a different product with the same name: "Good internet speed, TV, etc and fast response with tech work." This suggests a product-name collision on review platforms and reduces the reliability of some review signals. - One G2 review headline described the product as "Good software but dated" and noted configurability of the product selector, which aligns with the configurator value proposition referenced by the vendor. - Community/social evidence (Reddit) - A Reddit ERP thread included a negative sentiment: "I use Friedman Frontier at work and I hate it," without additional detail. This indicates at least one negative user impression but lacks context or specifics. - Why customers chose this product over alternatives (inferred from vendor positioning and limited review evidence) - Evidence suggests buyers choose Frontier when: - Product configuration complexity is high (numerous options and rules) - They require an integrated configurator-to-manufacturing workflow - They prefer ERP solutions with a long IBM i heritage and associated stability - Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons) - Direct churn reasons are not well documented in accessible sources. - The perception of an older user interface or legacy technology stack is a commonly cited driver in ERP replacement projects and is referenced in at least one review headline. - Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn’t purchase (plausible given evidence) - Unclear modern cloud/security posture (no public SOC 2/ISO disclosure) - Perception of an older UI/technology stack (WebSphere/IBM i association) - Smaller third-party ecosystem visibility compared with larger ERP vendors (NetSuite, Dynamics, Epicor)

Vendor/partner case study signals

Meridian IT published a "Case Study – Friedman Corp" PDF, but this material describes the vendor rather than an independent customer deployment of Frontier, so it does not provide typical ROI validation.
An interface brief references integration between Frontier ERP and third-party shipping solutions, indicating integration patterns but not quantified business outcomes.

Critical evaluation of case study quality

- In accessible sources captured, quantified ROI, payback period, and an independent methodology for Frontier implementations were not found. - Recommended buyer requests during procurement: - Named customer references in similar manufacturing segments - A sample project plan with timeline, internal staffing requirements, and post-go-live stabilization benchmarks - Sample KPI improvements with baseline definitions and measurement methodology

04Best fit

Company sizes: specific employee counts and revenue ranges

Based on Friedman’s positioning: mid-size to large manufacturers.
Practical ICP range (analyst inference):
- Employees: mid-market to large enterprises (companies with established manufacturing operations rather than very small shops)
- Revenue: mid-market to upper-mid-market manufacturing firms

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with examples)

Configuration-heavy manufacturing such as building products and make-to-order manufacturing are repeatedly referenced in vendor materials and historical coverage.

Roles and personas

Decision makers
- COO / VP Operations
- CFO (due to integrated accounting)
- CIO/IT Director (especially for IBM i hosting and security considerations)
End users
- Order entry / customer service
- Production planning and scheduling
- Purchasing and inventory
- Shop floor supervisors

Pain points the product addresses

Complex product configuration and pricing
Quote-to-order accuracy
Integrated planning, scheduling, and shop-floor reporting

Qualification criteria (good fit)

High product option complexity that benefits from a rules-based configurator
Preference for a manufacturing-specialist ERP rather than a generic ERP
Willingness to run on IBM i or hosted IBM i, or comfort with that ecosystem

05The pitch

- What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms) - Friedman Corporation’s primary product appears to be Frontier® ERP, a configuration-centric ERP system aimed at manufacturers with complex, custom (make-to-order / engineer-to-order) products. - The vendor emphasizes a configurator-centric architecture that integrates quoting, order capture, manufacturing execution, planning, and financials within a single suite. (Vendor claim.) - Target market and market positioning - Friedman markets Frontier as designed for mid-size to large manufacturers where generic ERP systems often require substantial customization and ongoing maintenance. (Vendor claim.) - The positioning is an ERP designed specifically for manufacturing rather than a general-purpose ERP adapted from other industries. (Vendor claim.) - Company background (founding year, HQ, key leadership) - Friedman Corporation states it was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois (USA). It also notes Frontier’s early IBM System/38 origins and conversion to IBM AS/400 in 1989—consistent with a long-lived IBM i lineage. - Friedman also lists an additional office and contact phone on product collateral. - Publicly available pages reviewed did not clearly list executive leadership names (CEO/President), which is a common information gap for privately held, niche ERP vendors. - Funding and growth: investment rounds, acquisitions, estimated customer count/revenue if public - Friedman Corporation appears to be a private company; funding rounds and revenue are not prominently disclosed on official vendor pages reviewed. - A third-party/legacy page asserts a large installed base, but this source appears non-authoritative and dated. - Some third-party databases claim lists of customers, but they are typically paywalled or require contact; these should be treated as directional rather than verified. - Pricing model with specific tiers and costs where available - Public list pricing is not available on official vendor pages reviewed; pricing appears to be contact-vendor and demo-driven. - Historical comparison guides list Frontier as "contact vendor for pricing," consistent with typical mid-market manufacturing ERP. - Summary: procurement teams should assume pricing depends on modules, user counts, deployment model (on-prem vs hosted), and implementation scope. - Total cost of ownership considerations (implementation, training, hidden costs) - Implementation methodology - Friedman documents a structured implementation approach called COMPASS (10-step) and mentions milestone-based progress assessments. Such formal services models can increase implementation predictability and services costs. - Hidden/variable costs to evaluate during procurement - Implementation services (process design, configuration, data migration) - Ongoing support and training (especially for IBM i and associated middleware) - Integration tooling (CAD, shipping, payroll/HR partners) - Hosting/managed services if choosing hosted/cloud options - Architectural implication - Public product information references an IBM platform and middleware with on-prem or hosted deployment options; organizations lacking IBM i expertise may face increased staffing or partner costs. - Key competitors in the space (list 4-6 direct alternatives) - Epicor Kinetic - Oracle NetSuite - Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central - Acumatica - Odoo (especially for cost-sensitive, customization-heavy buyers) - Industry-specific alternatives seen in manufacturing ERP selections (e.g., MIE Trak Pro appears as a sponsored/alternative on some review sites)

01Common complaints

Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient
- Startups and small manufacturers (for example, fewer than ~50–75 employees) that require rapid deployment and low administrative overhead may find Frontier’s implementation and platform requirements disproportionate.
Industries or use cases where competitors are more suitable
- Highly regulated environments that require publicly visible compliance documentation (SOC 2/ISO/HIPAA) may prefer vendors with more extensive publicly documented compliance artifacts.
Technical requirements that are not clearly addressed in public documentation
- Organizations that require turnkey SaaS-native capabilities (for example, SCIM provisioning, published encryption/audit documentation, and published uptime SLAs) should validate these requirements directly with the vendor, as public documentation reviewed did not make them explicit.
Budget constraints
- Organizations seeking transparent, low-end pricing may consider alternatives such as Odoo or Business Central, since Frontier’s pricing appears to be sales-led and not publicly listed.
Specific workflows or integrations where other vendors may have advantages
- If a procurement requirement includes a large marketplace of prebuilt connectors and an extensive partner ecosystem, NetSuite, Dynamics, or Acumatica may outperform Frontier in out-of-the-box integrations.
Red flags in the evaluation process
- Examples of procurement red flags include inability to provide:
  - Clear security documentation and third-party audit reports
  - Multiple current customer references in the buyer’s industry
  - A realistic implementation plan with resourcing requirements and timelines
Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor
- Vendor materials emphasize stability and operational security, but explicit limitations are not clearly documented on the pages captured.
Features on the roadmap (not yet available)
- Roadmap details were not clearly documented in the sources captured.
Scale limitations
- The vendor claims the solution supports a wide range of company sizes, but buyers should validate scalability with reference architectures, workload benchmarks, and customer references.
Security or compliance gaps
- The primary gap identified in public documentation is the lack of clearly published third-party security certifications and compliance statements.
API limitations or integration constraints
- Reporting access via ODBC is explicitly referenced; modern API-first integration documentation (REST, webhooks) was not clearly found in the public materials reviewed.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Requirement for publicly documented SOC 2/ISO certifications as a mandatory procurement gate
Need for a highly standardized, commodity ERP with extensive off-the-shelf integrations
Very small manufacturers seeking a low-cost SaaS ERP with minimal implementation overhead

03Field reports

Review-platform availability and limitations
- G2 has a Frontier product page with very low review volume (2 reviews) and a 2.8/5 overall score at the time captured, which makes statistical conclusions unreliable.
- A Frontier-specific listing was not located on Gartner Peer Insights in the captured sources (possible naming or category mismatch, or limited coverage).
- TrustRadius did not show a Frontier ERP review page in the captured sources.
G2 review evidence (positive and negative)
- One G2 review snippet appears to describe a different product with the same name: "Good internet speed, TV, etc and fast response with tech work." This suggests a product-name collision on review platforms and reduces the reliability of some review signals.
- One G2 review headline described the product as "Good software but dated" and noted configurability of the product selector, which aligns with the configurator value proposition referenced by the vendor.
Community/social evidence (Reddit)
- A Reddit ERP thread included a negative sentiment: "I use Friedman Frontier at work and I hate it," without additional detail. This indicates at least one negative user impression but lacks context or specifics.
Why customers chose this product over alternatives (inferred from vendor positioning and limited review evidence)
- Evidence suggests buyers choose Frontier when:
  - Product configuration complexity is high (numerous options and rules)
  - They require an integrated configurator-to-manufacturing workflow
  - They prefer ERP solutions with a long IBM i heritage and associated stability
Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)
- Direct churn reasons are not well documented in accessible sources.
- The perception of an older user interface or legacy technology stack is a commonly cited driver in ERP replacement projects and is referenced in at least one review headline.
Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn’t purchase (plausible given evidence)
- Unclear modern cloud/security posture (no public SOC 2/ISO disclosure)
- Perception of an older UI/technology stack (WebSphere/IBM i association)
- Smaller third-party ecosystem visibility compared with larger ERP vendors (NetSuite, Dynamics, Epicor)

Vendor/partner case study signals

Meridian IT published a "Case Study – Friedman Corp" PDF, but this material describes the vendor rather than an independent customer deployment of Frontier, so it does not provide typical ROI validation.
An interface brief references integration between Frontier ERP and third-party shipping solutions, indicating integration patterns but not quantified business outcomes.

Critical evaluation of case study quality

In accessible sources captured, quantified ROI, payback period, and an independent methodology for Frontier implementations were not found.
Recommended buyer requests during procurement:
- Named customer references in similar manufacturing segments
- A sample project plan with timeline, internal staffing requirements, and post-go-live stabilization benchmarks
- Sample KPI improvements with baseline definitions and measurement methodology

04Best fit

Company sizes: specific employee counts and revenue ranges

Based on Friedman’s positioning: mid-size to large manufacturers.
Practical ICP range (analyst inference):
- Employees: mid-market to large enterprises (companies with established manufacturing operations rather than very small shops)
- Revenue: mid-market to upper-mid-market manufacturing firms

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with examples)

Configuration-heavy manufacturing such as building products and make-to-order manufacturing are repeatedly referenced in vendor materials and historical coverage.

Roles and personas

Decision makers
- COO / VP Operations
- CFO (due to integrated accounting)
- CIO/IT Director (especially for IBM i hosting and security considerations)
End users
- Order entry / customer service
- Production planning and scheduling
- Purchasing and inventory
- Shop floor supervisors

Pain points the product addresses

Complex product configuration and pricing
Quote-to-order accuracy
Integrated planning, scheduling, and shop-floor reporting

Qualification criteria (good fit)

High product option complexity that benefits from a rules-based configurator
Preference for a manufacturing-specialist ERP rather than a generic ERP
Willingness to run on IBM i or hosted IBM i, or comfort with that ecosystem

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)
- Friedman Corporation’s primary product appears to be Frontier® ERP, a configuration-centric ERP system aimed at manufacturers with complex, custom (make-to-order / engineer-to-order) products.
- The vendor emphasizes a configurator-centric architecture that integrates quoting, order capture, manufacturing execution, planning, and financials within a single suite. (Vendor claim.)
Target market and market positioning
- Friedman markets Frontier as designed for mid-size to large manufacturers where generic ERP systems often require substantial customization and ongoing maintenance. (Vendor claim.)
- The positioning is an ERP designed specifically for manufacturing rather than a general-purpose ERP adapted from other industries. (Vendor claim.)
Company background (founding year, HQ, key leadership)
- Friedman Corporation states it was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois (USA). It also notes Frontier’s early IBM System/38 origins and conversion to IBM AS/400 in 1989—consistent with a long-lived IBM i lineage.
- Friedman also lists an additional office and contact phone on product collateral.
- Publicly available pages reviewed did not clearly list executive leadership names (CEO/President), which is a common information gap for privately held, niche ERP vendors.
Funding and growth: investment rounds, acquisitions, estimated customer count/revenue if public
- Friedman Corporation appears to be a private company; funding rounds and revenue are not prominently disclosed on official vendor pages reviewed.
- A third-party/legacy page asserts a large installed base, but this source appears non-authoritative and dated.
- Some third-party databases claim lists of customers, but they are typically paywalled or require contact; these should be treated as directional rather than verified.
Pricing model with specific tiers and costs where available
- Public list pricing is not available on official vendor pages reviewed; pricing appears to be contact-vendor and demo-driven.
- Historical comparison guides list Frontier as "contact vendor for pricing," consistent with typical mid-market manufacturing ERP.
- Summary: procurement teams should assume pricing depends on modules, user counts, deployment model (on-prem vs hosted), and implementation scope.
Total cost of ownership considerations (implementation, training, hidden costs)
- Implementation methodology
  - Friedman documents a structured implementation approach called COMPASS (10-step) and mentions milestone-based progress assessments. Such formal services models can increase implementation predictability and services costs.
- Hidden/variable costs to evaluate during procurement
  - Implementation services (process design, configuration, data migration)
  - Ongoing support and training (especially for IBM i and associated middleware)
  - Integration tooling (CAD, shipping, payroll/HR partners)
  - Hosting/managed services if choosing hosted/cloud options
- Architectural implication
  - Public product information references an IBM platform and middleware with on-prem or hosted deployment options; organizations lacking IBM i expertise may face increased staffing or partner costs.
Key competitors in the space (list 4-6 direct alternatives)
- Epicor Kinetic
- Oracle NetSuite
- Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central
- Acumatica
- Odoo (especially for cost-sensitive, customization-heavy buyers)
- Industry-specific alternatives seen in manufacturing ERP selections (e.g., MIE Trak Pro appears as a sponsored/alternative on some review sites)

Friedman Corporation

01Common complaints

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

02Why they buy

03Field reports

Vendor/partner case study signals

Critical evaluation of case study quality

04Best fit

Company sizes: specific employee counts and revenue ranges

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with examples)

Roles and personas

Pain points the product addresses

Qualification criteria (good fit)

05The pitch

01Common complaints

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

02Why they buy

03Field reports

Vendor/partner case study signals

Critical evaluation of case study quality

04Best fit

Company sizes: specific employee counts and revenue ranges

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with examples)

Roles and personas

Pain points the product addresses

Qualification criteria (good fit)

05The pitch