The contract is signed. Lawyers are celebrating. The board announces synergies. Champagne glasses clink. The acquisition went through!
However, somewhere in IT, someone just opened a document with a question that never makes it into the press release: What do we do with our CRM systems? The acquired company runs Salesforce. Headquarters runs Microsoft Dynamics. And there is a custom-built CRM that an internal team delivered six years ago, and nobody wants to touch. All three need to “start communicating.” Meanwhile, sales teams from both companies are working the same customers from two different systems, sending inconsistent proposals, unaware of each other. Every system is billing a separate subscription.
This is the reality of M&A from the CRM side, and it is a problem most organizations solve reactively, long after the deal closes, when the cost of the chaos is already visible in financial reports.
This article is a complete guide to CRM consolidation after a merger or acquisition for Enterprise Architects, CIOs, and CTOs. It covers three horizons that reflect where you might be right now: before the deal closes (due diligence), immediately after closing (the first 90 days), and during technical integration (architecture, migration, Customer 360). It describes concrete problems and their consequences, available solution architectures, the market for tools, a decision framework for choosing the right path, and a 7-year TCO comparison that shows when a custom CRM stops being the expensive option and starts being the rational one.
Global M&A deal value reached $3.4 trillion in 2024, a 12% increase year over year, according to McKinsey. Behind each of those transactions is a post-merger integration workstream that eventually arrives at the same question: how do you consolidate CRM systems after an acquisition, and what do you do with customer data scattered across both organizations?
CRM is the hardest system to consolidate for reasons that set it apart from ERP platforms, accounting systems, or email infrastructure. It is simultaneously a database and an operational process. ERP can be migrated because it has a relatively well-defined data structure. CRM lives in context: sales pipeline, funnel stages, the definition of “customer,” “opportunity,” and “contract” differ between organizations, even when both use the same vendor. Consolidating two Salesforce instances after a merger can be harder than migrating from Salesforce to Dynamics if both systems were developed independently over the years with different definitions of the same business objects.
CRM holds the memory of the organization. Historical customer data, interaction history, pipeline records from five years ago: this is knowledge with real business value. A CRM migration is not a record transfer. It is a context transfer that determines how salespeople understand their customers.
CRM directly affects external customers. An error in the accounting system is internal. An error in CRM means the same customer receives two conflicting calls from two salespeople from the “same” company, with two different prices, from two different systems. The customer does not see the IT architecture. They see chaos.
Regardless of industry, deal size, or technology stack, every M&A surfaces the same set of CRM problems. Identifying each one precisely is the first step toward selecting the right consolidation architecture.
This is the most visible problem of post-merger CRM integration and the hardest to resolve without MDM (Master Data Management) tooling. The same customer exists under a different ID in each system, often with a different spelling of the company name, a different tax ID format, and an address stored in a different standard.
Multiple records for the same customer obscure the true value and relationship history, making customer management and cross-sell planning unreliable. In enterprise practice, across one million records in two combined CRM systems, the real number of unique customers can be 20 to 40 percent lower than the reported figure. Revenue metrics are inflated, cross-sell is impossible without manual reconciliation, and marketing campaigns reach the same addresses twice from two separate systems.
This problem is invisible in the database schema but critical in practice. What does “Stage 3 of the sales pipeline” mean in each system? What qualifies as an “active customer”? How is contract value calculated: net, gross, ARR, TCV? How is “lead” defined versus “opportunity”?
When the CEO asks for the combined pipeline of the entire organization after a merger, the number assembled from two systems may have no analytical value, because it is comparing apples to oranges.
The average company spends $135,000 per year on unnecessary software licenses. After a merger, that figure increases because the organization maintains overlapping subscriptions for months or years.
In a per-seat model, which Salesforce, Microsoft Dynamics, and most SaaS CRM platforms use, every user on both platforms generates a separate cost. An organization with 500 users on Salesforce and 300 on Dynamics may be paying for 800 licenses, of which 200 apply to the same people or to the same functions delivered redundantly in two systems. Post-merger integration costs typically range from 3 to 10 percent of deal value, and IT and software licenses are consistently the largest component of that cost.
Without a consolidated view, no level of management has reliable insight into what is actually happening in sales. Two VP Sales roles report to a single CFO with two separate pipeline numbers, built in two systems, on two different definitions of stage and value. Forecasting is impossible. Sales resource allocation is impossible. Identifying customers who have relationships on both sides of the transaction (the most promising cross-sell candidates) is impossible.
Every organization implements CRM in the context of its own processes, training, terminology, and sales culture. A merger brings together two cultures that have spent years building their own ways of thinking about customers, opportunities, and relationships. CRM is the tool that codifies those cultures. Unifying the system without unifying the process produces a situation where the new shared CRM is used in two different, incompatible ways by two different teams.
This is the dimension that organizations most frequently underestimate in integration planning. Personal data about customers stored in the acquired company’s CRM systems was collected under a specific consent basis and privacy policy of that entity. Transferring this data to the acquirer’s CRM, and especially combining it with data from the other system, may require a new legal basis for processing or refreshed consent.
The European Data Protection Board has stated that the privacy implications of a merger must be taken into account by the parties to the transaction, and that the risk of combining and accumulating sensitive personal data must be assessed. GDPR provides for penalties of up to 20 million euros or 4 percent of global annual revenues for violations.
Duplicate records across two systems are not only an operational problem. They are a potential legal problem: the same data subject is stored in two places, under two different legal bases, with two different retention policies. A Right to Erasure request must be fulfilled in both systems simultaneously, something organizations running parallel CRM environments regularly overlook.
A customer who has a relationship with both sides of the transaction will, for a long time after closing, be served by two independent systems, often by two salespeople who are unaware of each other. They receive two invoices, two proposals, and two renewal calls. This is not an inconvenience. It is a direct customer churn risk for any customer who has a choice.
For the problem of CRM consolidation after a merger, there are several architectural schools of thought. No single answer applies to every situation, because each architecture is optimal for a different context.
One of the two existing systems is selected as the target platform. Data from the other is migrated, mapped, and cleaned. The second system is decommissioned.
Advantages: the simplest target state, one license cost, unambiguous data view, no long-term maintenance of two systems. Disadvantages: the longest implementation timeline (typically 12 to 24 months for a full enterprise migration), the highest upfront cost, the highest risk of data or historical context loss during migration, and organizational resistance from the teams whose system gets shut down.
Disadvantages: if both systems were heavily customized, a migration “between the same platform” can be harder than a migration to a new one. CIO.com states this directly: if systems have been heavily customized or have large and disjoint data sets, running in parallel is the safer bet even when both sides use the same platform.
When this is the right choice: when both organizations are being fully integrated operationally rather than maintained as separate business units. When one system is clearly technically and functionally stronger. When historical data from the second system has low value or can be archived outside the active CRM.
Both systems run in parallel for a defined transition period. An integration layer, API gateway, or middleware synchronizes key data between them in real time or near-real time. A separate reporting layer, data warehouse, or data lakehouse, aggregates data from both systems for management purposes.
Advantages: low initial implementation time, zero risk to operational continuity, and allows a gradual transition.
Disadvantages: the highest ongoing cost during the transition phase (double licenses, double administration, double support), and the risk of “permanent temporariness” when the consolidation decision keeps getting deferred. The synchronization layer is architecturally critical and must be designed with semantic mismatches in mind.
When this is the right choice: as a transition solution in the first 6 to 18 months after closing, when full consolidation is the long-term goal. When both business units will maintain partial operational independence. When the organization needs time to align sales processes before aligning technology.
Instead of consolidating CRM systems, the organization builds a central Master Data Management hub that becomes the single source of truth for customer identity. The existing CRM systems remain in place as operational systems for their respective units, but the “golden record” for every customer is maintained in MDM. All systems subscribe to the customer definition from MDM rather than building it independently.
This is the Customer 360 architecture in the full sense of the term. MDM sits at the center: it receives data from CRMs, marketing platforms, e-commerce systems, and ERPs. It cleanses and deduplicates, creates a golden record for each customer, then distributes those records back to operational and analytical systems.
Advantages: does not require the immediate decommissioning of any system, delivers a consolidated customer view without full migration, allows gradual transition, and best handles scenarios where acquired companies retain partial brand or operational independence. Disadvantages: requires deploying an additional MDM platform (Informatica, Semarchy, Ataccama, Stibo Systems, and others), higher upfront architectural cost, and complexity of data governance across systems.
When this is the right choice: when the organization plans further acquisitions and needs an architecture that scales for N systems, not just two. When acquired companies retain separate brands or operational units. When the business value of Customer 360, cross-sell, portfolio management, and marketing analytics is a priority in its own right, not just a byproduct of consolidation.
Instead of forcing a politically charged decision about which existing system “wins,” the organization builds a completely new target system from scratch on a modern technology stack. Both legacy systems are kept running in parallel just long enough to migrate data to the new platform, and then both are decommissioned.
On paper, this option is rarely the first choice for a simple reason: it implies the longest timeline and the highest upfront build cost. However, for specific organizational profiles, it is actually the most rational, financially sound, and strategic path to take. Here is why enterprise leaders choose this route and the specific M&A problems it solves:
When is this the right choice?
T-Mobile Poland operated on three separate CRM systems, each a legacy of historical operations and prior acquisitions. Each served a different customer segment or sales channel. Every update to any of the systems required shutting down the entire environment. Consultants beginning a customer interaction had to know and operate three different interfaces.
Pretius designed and built a unified CRM from scratch on a Java and Spring Boot microservice architecture. The system replaced all three historical platforms. The 350-module microservice architecture serves over 11 million customers and has been in continuous production for more than a decade. Key architectural outcomes: every module is updatable independently, without taking down the rest of the system. Zero downtime during updates. Full customer history and relationship context available from a single place.
Ready the full case study here!
T-Mobile is an example of Architecture 4: rather than choosing a winner among existing systems or attempting to integrate them, the organization built a new target layer that meets the requirements of the combined organization for the next decade.
One of the most common questions a CIO asks during post-merger CRM consolidation planning is: how much will this cost and how long will it take? The estimates below are based on publicly available licensing data and market benchmarks for an organization with 300 active CRM users. All figures are in USD and represent indicative reference points rather than binding estimates, because real cost depends heavily on the complexity of customization, data quality going in, and scope decisions.
Licensing reference data (Q1 2026):
Scenario: Post-merger organization has 200 users on Salesforce Enterprise and 100 on Dynamics Enterprise. Decision: full consolidation to a single Salesforce Enterprise instance for 300 users.
| Cost component | Amount (USD) |
| Salesforce licenses: 300 users x $175 x 12 months | $630,000/year |
| Duplicate licenses during migration period (approx. 12 months) | +$378,000 one-time (Dynamics 100 users x 12 months) |
| Implementation and data migration (market benchmark) | $150,000 — $400,000 one-time |
| Data cleansing and deduplication before migration | $30,000 — $100,000 one-time |
| Training and change management | $30,000 — $80,000 one-time |
| Estimated total cost Year 1 | ~$1.2M — $1.6M |
| License cost from Year 2 (flat, before price increases) | $630,000/year |
Note: Salesforce has implemented two price increases in the last five years. Assuming 5% annual price growth, the license cost for 300 users reaches approximately $800,000/year by Year 5.
Scenario: Both systems run in parallel for 18 months. Middleware synchronizes key records. A separate data warehouse handles management reporting.
| Cost component | Amount (USD) |
| Duplicate licenses for 18 months (Salesforce 200 + Dynamics 100) | ~$800,000 |
| Middleware/iPaaS deployment (MuleSoft, Boomi, Azure Integration) | $60,000 — $200,000 |
| Data warehouse for management reporting | $30,000 — $80,000 |
| Administration and maintenance of two systems for 18 months | +30 to 50% IT overhead |
| Cost of transition phase (18 months) | ~$900,000 — $1.2M |
Key risk: Every month, the “transition phase” is extended, adding approximately $55,000 to $70,000 in duplicate license costs and operational overhead. Organizations that do not set a hard consolidation deadline regularly remain in this phase for three to five years.
Scenario: both operational CRM systems remain in place; a new MDM platform becomes the golden record for customer identity. Typical platforms: Semarchy, Ataccama, or Informatica.
| Cost component | Amount (USD) |
| MDM platform license (Semarchy/Ataccama, 300K records) | $60,000 — $150,000/year |
| MDM Hub implementation (integrations, matching rules, golden record) | $100,000 — $300,000 one-time |
| Existing CRM licenses maintained (no reduction in Phase 1) | $630,000 — $800,000/year |
| Ongoing governance and data stewardship | $30,000 — $60,000/year |
| Cost Year 1 | ~$800,000 — $1.3M |
| Cost from Year 2 | ~$720,000 — $1.0M/year |
TCO rationale: The MDM Hub architecture begins to pay back as an investment when the organization plans further acquisitions. With each subsequent M&A, the cost of onboarding a new system into an existing hub is several times lower than the initial build.
Scenario: Both existing systems are outdated or inadequate for the combined organization. Decision to build a target system from scratch in Java/Spring Boot or equivalent architecture. End state: zero per-user platform licensing fees.
| Cost component | Amount (USD) |
| Design and architecture phase | $80,000 — $150,000 |
| System build (18 to 36 months, team of 5 to 10 engineers) | $800,000 — $3,000,000 |
| Data migration from both systems | $100,000 — $300,000 |
| Infrastructure (cloud/on-prem, Year 1) | $50,000 — $150,000/year |
| Maintenance and development (team of 2 to 4 engineers, Year 2+) | $200,000 — $500,000/year |
| Platform licenses during transition phase (both systems) | $800,000 — $1,200,000 one-time |
| Total build cost including transition phase | ~$1.8M — $4.8M |
| Annual maintenance cost from Year 3 | $250,000 — $650,000/year |
The critical difference: from the moment the system goes into production, the cost of adding the next 100, 500, or 1,000 users is zero at the licensing layer. All scaling cost is infrastructure and optional functional development.
The table below compares the total cost of ownership over a 7-year horizon for all four architectures. Assumptions: 300 users, 5% annual SaaS price growth, custom infrastructure approximately $100,000/year, custom maintenance approximately $350,000/year from Year 3. All figures in USD.
| Year | Salesforce Enterprise (consolidation) | Dynamics 365 Enterprise (consolidation) | MDM Hub + Salesforce | Custom CRM (Java/Spring Boot) |
| Year 1 (build + migration) | $1,400,000 | $900,000 | $1,100,000 | $2,200,000 |
| Year 2 (licenses + overhead) | $661,000 | $397,000 | $740,000 | $1,000,000 |
| Year 3 | $694,000 | $417,000 | $777,000 | $450,000 |
| Year 4 | $729,000 | $438,000 | $816,000 | $450,000 |
| Year 5 | $765,000 | $460,000 | $857,000 | $450,000 |
| Year 6 | $803,000 | $483,000 | $900,000 | $450,000 |
| Year 7 | $844,000 | $507,000 | $945,000 | $450,000 |
| Total 7-year TCO | $5,896,000 | $3,602,000 | $6,135,000 | $5,450,000 |
| Break-even vs Salesforce | n/a | n/a | n/a | ~Year 4 to 5 |
Pretius estimates based on public licensing data and market benchmarks for implementation costs. Actual TCO depends on the extent of customization, transaction volume, and hosting model. Salesforce pricing: salesforce.com/news/stories/pricing-update-2025. Dynamics 365 pricing: techcronus.com.
Key observations from the table:
First: Dynamics 365 is the lowest-cost option over a 7-year horizon for a single-platform consolidation scenario, provided the organization has relatively standard sales processes and does not require extensive customization that compounds maintenance cost.
Second: custom CRM has the highest cost in Years 1 and 2, but the lowest from Year 3 onward. The break-even point against Salesforce Enterprise falls around Year 4 to 5 for 300 users. For 500 or more users, the break-even point moves closer to Year 3, because SaaS license cost scales linearly with headcount while custom CRM cost does not.
Third: MDM Hub over existing SaaS systems is the highest-cost option over 7 years, because it stacks MDM licensing on top of CRM licensing. Its value is not in TCO. It lies in the architectural scalability for future acquisitions: each subsequent company added to the hub costs no additional platform build.
Fourth: for serial acquirers, organizations planning two or more M&A transactions within a 5-year horizon, the case for custom CRM or MDM Hub architecture strengthens substantially. SaaS platform cost grows with every new company integrated, while the cost of a federated architecture remains largely fixed.
What the table does not capture (but must be part of the decision):
The cost of lost cross-sell revenue during the period when the organization lacks a unified customer view. For a company with a portfolio of 50,000 customers and an average contract value of $20,000, each one percent of cross-sell effectiveness represents $10,000,000 in revenue. The inability to identify shared customers in the first 12 to 18 months after closing has a real price that no TCO table reflects directly.
The cost of sales rep attrition is due to frustration with working across two systems. In the context where Miller Heiman Group estimated roughly 50 percent of seller time lost to administrative tasks across 15 parallel CRM systems, this dimension is not trivial.
The cost of GDPR risk from maintaining duplicate databases of personal data without a clear retention policy and systematic handling of Right to Erasure requests.
The table below maps the four architectures against the most important decision variables.
| Criterion | Full Consolidation | Parallel + API | MDM Hub (Customer 360) | New Custom System |
| Time to first value | Long (12 to 24 months) | Short (2 to 4 months) | Medium (6 to 12 months) | Very long (18 to 36 months) |
| Implementation cost | High | Low upfront | High | Highest |
| Ongoing cost | Low (1 system) | High (2 systems) | Medium | Low (no per-user fees) |
| Operational risk | High (migration) | Low | Low | Highest |
| Scalability for future M&A | Low | Low | High | High |
| Business unit independence | Low | High | High | Low |
| Customer 360 quality | High (post-migration) | Low | Very high | High (post-build) |
| Right scenario | Full org integration | Transition phase | Multi-entity / serial acquirer | Both systems outdated or inadequate |
Three questions that most accurately determine the right direction:
First: will the acquired company maintain operational or brand independence for the next 3 to 5 years? If yes, a federated architecture or parallel system with an MDM hub is more appropriate than full consolidation.
Second: is the organization planning further acquisitions within the next 3 to 5 years? If yes, the investment in an MDM Hub architecture pays back through repeated use. Each subsequent acquisition is a simpler operation of adding a new data source to an existing hub.
Third: how would you assess the technical quality of the existing CRM systems? If both are outdated, heavily customized, and require modernization regardless of the merger, the new system scenario is rational despite being the longest and most expensive path upfront.
CRM system inventory on the target side. Platform, version, number of users, data scope, customizations, integrations with other systems, and license costs. This is the baseline for estimating integration cost. Skipping this step is one of the most common reasons post-merger CRM integration costs come in significantly above initial estimates.
Data quality assessment. How many customer records? What percentage are likely duplicates? What is the format and completeness of contact data? Is the data ready for migration, or does it require cleansing first? The answer determines whether the migration project costs $150,000 or $400,000.
GDPR assessment on the target side. What legal bases apply to customer data processing? Are consent records documented? Have there been any data breaches? What are the data retention policies? Many M&A practitioners have experienced disruptions in negotiations due to the target company’s GDPR status. Identifying this before closing is cheaper than resolving it after.
Overlapping customer mapping. How many entities are customers of both parties? This defines the scale of the deduplication problem and the revenue potential of cross-sell synergies, often the primary business case for the acquisition itself.
Semantic assessment. How does each system define key business objects: customer, contract, opportunity, sales stage? Semantic mismatches are often harder to resolve than technical ones and take significantly longer.
Freeze changes to both CRM systems where possible. Every new modification increases the debt that will need to be migrated or synchronized. This is especially important for schema changes and new custom fields.
Establish a temporary reporting layer. A shared data warehouse drawing from both systems for management purposes. The CEO and CFO need one pipeline number and one active customer count, even if the systems continue running separately. This takes 4 to 8 weeks and is achievable without resolving the underlying consolidation question.
Make the target architecture decision. This is a strategic decision, not a technical one. It requires CIO, architects, sales leadership, and legal/compliance. The four architectures described above should be evaluated against the specific organizational context. Deferring this decision is the most common single cause of permanent parallel-system drift.
Nominate data owners for each system. Each system must have an accountable owner responsible for data quality and a counterpart on the other side for migration coordination.
Implement an immediate GDPR rule. Every Right to Erasure request must be fulfilled in both systems simultaneously. Until full consolidation, this requires either a manual process or automated synchronization. Operating without this rule is a compliance gap from day one.
Start with data, not with technology. Data cleansing and deduplication should precede any technical migration. Migrating dirty data to a new system moves the problem rather than solving it. The golden record definition, which data takes precedence, which source provides the address, which source provides the email, must be defined by the business before any MDM tool is configured.
Plan migration iteratively, not as a single big bang. Full single-pass data migration is one of the primary causes of CRM project failure. Between 20 and 70 percent of CRM projects fail, primarily due to poor adoption and lack of cross-functional coordination. Business data quality validation after each iteration reduces risk substantially.
Test with the business, not just with engineering. A technically successful migration can be a business failure if salespeople cannot find the customer history, pipeline, or contract they need. Testing must be done by end users, not only engineers. This step is routinely underresourced and routinely accounts for a significant share of post-go-live remediation cost.
Implement real-time duplicate prevention after migration. Even after a successful migration and deduplication exercise, new duplicates will accumulate if the organization does not deploy mechanisms to prevent duplicate entry on new records. Tamr offers fuzzy search APIs that check in real time whether a new record is a duplicate of an existing golden record before it is written to any system.
Post-merger CRM consolidation is a critical and complex challenge, often harder than integrating other systems like ERP, as CRM is tied to operational processes, organizational memory, and direct customer experience. Failure to consolidate leads to problems, including duplicate customer records, semantic mismatches, high duplicate license costs, and fragmented sales visibility. The biggest challenge, however, is choosing the right approach, as scenarios that seem most beneficial might turn out to be costly in the long run.
Need a partner who’ll help you design and implement a new CRM system? Reach out to us at hello@pretius.com or use the contact form below – we’ll be happy to help!
Can we simply not consolidate and run two CRM systems indefinitely?
Yes, and many organizations do this, particularly when acquired companies are maintained as separate brands or business units. But “running two systems” has a price: double licenses, double administration, no visibility into customers shared across both entities, GDPR risk from parallel personal data stores, inability to produce consolidated reporting without an additional analytics layer. This may be acceptable as a transition state. It is not a viable long-term strategy.
How long does CRM consolidation take after a merger?
Indicative timelines for enterprise-scale projects: a reporting layer and API synchronization between systems running in parallel takes 2 to 4 months. Deploying an MDM Hub with Customer 360 takes 6 to 12 months. Full migration to a single system for a mid-market organization takes 12 to 18 months. Full migration and build of a new system for large enterprise, like the T-Mobile project, takes 18 to 36 months. In every case, timeline depends more on data complexity and process alignment than on the technology itself. A common rule of thumb from practitioners: 70 to 80 percent of integration needs to happen within two years of closing. What has not been integrated in five years probably never will be.
What is harder: migrating between two different platforms, or consolidating two instances of the same platform?
Intuitively it seems that consolidating two Salesforce instances is simpler than migrating from Salesforce to Dynamics. In practice the reverse is often true. Two instances of the same platform, developed independently over years, can have deeply divergent data schemas, customizations, and semantic definitions. The decision should be based on data quality and complexity analysis, not the platform name.
How do you merge customer databases without violating GDPR?
The key is analyzing the legal bases for processing in both systems before any data transfer occurs. If customers of both companies gave consent under different privacy policies for different processing purposes, merging the databases requires either a new legal basis (such as legitimate interest, if it passes a proportionality test) or refreshed consent. Marketing and Legal must collaborate from day one, not after technical integration is complete. A safe transition strategy is to keep separate systems and communicate with customers from each system independently, informing them of the merger and new privacy policy before any database merging occurs.
What is the difference between MDM and CRM, and why would I need MDM if I already have a CRM?
CRM manages relationships and sales processes: pipeline, opportunities, contacts, interactions. MDM manages identity: who the customer is, how a unique customer record is defined, what the relationships between entities are — company, division, contact, contract. CRM manages the data it owns. MDM is the layer that provides a golden record for each customer to the CRM, ERP, marketing system, and all other systems simultaneously. In a post-merger architecture, MDM is what allows multiple systems to operate with a consistent, deduplicated customer definition.
Is a custom-built CRM really worth the investment for our organization?
It depends on three variables: user count, how long you plan to operate the system, and whether you plan further acquisitions. For organizations above roughly 400 to 500 users with a 5-year or longer horizon, the TCO of custom development crosses below the Salesforce Enterprise curve. For serial acquirers, the case is stronger: each new entity added to a custom system adds zero platform licensing cost. For organizations with standard sales processes, a shorter operating horizon, or strong existing Microsoft/Salesforce ecosystem investments, SaaS consolidation will often deliver better TCO. There is no universal answer. The right question is not “is custom worth it?” but “what does the 7-year TCO look like for our specific user count, growth trajectory, and acquisition plans?”
Can Pretius help if one company uses Oracle APEX and the other runs on Java?
Yes. Pretius has production competencies in Java/Spring Boot, Oracle APEX, and Mendix. Consolidation of heterogeneous environments, building an integration layer, or deciding on a new target system are projects we run regardless of what the starting systems are. More on our approach to technology selection for enterprise CRM: pretius.com/what/tailored-crm.
Facing a CRM consolidation after a merger or acquisition?
Pretius offers a architecture consultation for organizations in or after an M&A transaction. We analyze the CRM inventory on both sides of the deal, map customer data and semantic mismatches, assess GDPR risk, and recommend a target architecture with a clear rationale.
