

Moritz Krol
12 Feb 2026
Manual Excel forecasting can work well in early stages. But as SKU counts, volatility, and cross-functional alignment needs grow, manual spreadsheet planning becomes a bottleneck. This article compares Excel-based forecasting and numi from an operational perspective.
If your planning scope is small and stable, Excel can be sufficient. If you need reliable daily decisions across many SKUs, locations, and stakeholders, numi is usually the more robust option.
| Criteria | Manual Excel Forecasting | numi |
|---|---|---|
| Model selection | Manual and analyst-dependent | Automated best-fit model logic by item behavior |
| Update cadence | Weekly or monthly cycles | Frequent, repeatable forecast updates |
| Scalability | Difficult with larger SKU-location portfolios | Built for multi-SKU, multi-location planning |
| Collaboration | Version conflicts and email handoffs | Shared workflows and controlled review process |
| Risk detection | Mostly reactive checks | Early anomaly detection and prioritized exceptions |
| Execution | Manual transfer to ERP and purchasing | Workflow-ready recommendations for execution |
| Traceability | Limited override transparency | Structured decision history and explainability |
Excel remains a valid setup when:
For these cases, a lightweight process can outperform unnecessary system complexity.
Most teams run into issues when:
At this point, the core problem is usually process scalability, not planner quality.
numi combines forecasting, inventory policy logic, and replenishment workflows so decisions can be updated and executed faster. Teams keep human oversight while reducing manual effort and inconsistency.
Relevant pages:
No. The main fit criterion is planning complexity, not company size. Mid-sized businesses with many SKUs or volatile demand also benefit.
No. numi supports human-in-the-loop workflows, so teams can review and adjust recommendations.
No. numi complements ERP systems and improves decision quality before execution.