What it means
Every growing business eventually faces the same choice when buying software or selecting suppliers: one vendor covering everything, or several specialists that each do one thing exceptionally well. The best-of-breed approach takes the second route.
The appeal is functional depth. A dedicated expenses system built by a company that thinks about nothing else will almost always handle receipts, mileage and policy rules better than the expenses module bundled into a general accounting suite.
This matters financially because the true comparison is not the licence fee. Best-of-breed stacks carry integration build costs, more vendor relationships to manage, more security reviews, and internal time spent keeping data consistent between systems that were never designed to talk to each other.
In practice, finance teams evaluate the two approaches on total cost of ownership across three to five years, then weigh that against the operational benefit of better tools. The suite usually wins on cost and simplicity; best of breed usually wins on capability and on the ability to replace a single weak component without ripping out everything.
The nuance worth remembering is that this is rarely a binary decision. Most organisations run a hybrid: a core suite for the ledger and payroll, plus one or two specialists where the generic module genuinely fails the business, which keeps integration effort proportionate to the benefit gained.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A fast-growing subscription business keeps its accounting suite for the general ledger but adds a specialist revenue recognition tool, because the suite cannot handle multi-year contracts with usage components. The integration costs money, but it removes a month-end spreadsheet that took three days.
Example
A manufacturer standardises on a single enterprise suite after acquiring two competitors, judging that having one version of inventory data across three sites is worth more than the superior planning tool one of the acquired businesses used.
Example
A marketing agency assembles a best-of-breed stack of time tracking, invoicing and project management tools. It works well until the invoicing vendor changes its data format, which breaks the connection and delays billing by two weeks.
Formula
Calculation
Total cost of ownership = (Annual licence cost x Years) + One-off integration and implementation cost + (Internal support cost x Years).
Compare two options over three years. The best-of-breed route uses four specialist tools at $60,000 each per year, so licences cost 4 x $60,000 = $240,000 annually, plus a one-off integration build of $150,000 and half a full-time analyst to maintain the connections, costed at $90,000 per year.
Over three years that is (3 x $240,000) + $150,000 + (3 x $90,000) = $720,000 + $150,000 + $270,000 = $1,140,000. The single-suite alternative costs $310,000 a year in licences with an $80,000 implementation and no dedicated integration support, giving (3 x $310,000) + $80,000 = $930,000 + $80,000 = $1,010,000. The suite is $1,140,000 - $1,010,000 = $130,000 cheaper over the period, so the business must decide whether the better specialist tools are worth roughly $43,333 a year.Case study
Seen in the real world.
This is a fictional, illustrative story. Ferngate Retail Group, an invented chain of 60 stores, ran a best-of-breed finance stack assembled over eight years: four specialist systems, each chosen by a different finance lead, joined by connectors written by a contractor who had long since moved on.
When the group tried to close its year-end in five working days, it could not. Roughly $1.14 million of three-year cost was tied up in a set of tools that individually scored well but collectively required a manual reconciliation every month because two of them defined a cost centre differently.
The new finance director did not scrap everything. She consolidated three of the four systems into a suite for $1.01 million over the equivalent period, kept the one specialist tool that genuinely outperformed, and wrote a rule that any future specialist purchase must come with a named internal owner for its integration. The illustrative lesson is that best of breed is a real strategy with real benefits, but only when someone owns the seams between the products.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Comparing options on licence fees alone and ignoring integration build, maintenance and the internal time spent reconciling systems.
- Letting individual departments buy their own specialist tools with no central view, which produces a stack nobody designed and nobody owns.
- Assuming best of breed always means better outcomes. A slightly weaker tool that shares data cleanly often beats a superior one that sits in isolation.
Questions
People also ask.
How do I decide between best of breed and a single suite?
Model total cost of ownership over three to five years for both, then ask whether the extra capability of the specialists solves a problem the business can actually quantify.
Is a hybrid approach acceptable?
Yes, and it is the most common outcome: a core suite for the ledger with one or two specialists where the bundled module genuinely fails.
What is the biggest hidden cost?
Ongoing integration maintenance, because every vendor upgrade risks breaking a connection that only one person understands.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%