ME49 — Price Comparison for Quotations
ME49 is used to compare vendor quotations for an RFQ using prices and commercial conditions. It is most useful when procurement chooses a preferred quotation after vendor responses are recorded. Work from the exact document, organizational level and business date, then verify downstream status or accounting evidence before changing master data or configuration.
This page explains ME49 — Price Comparison for Quotations — as a practitioner reference: what it does, when it belongs in the process, the fields that matter, how to prove the result in SAP data, and the mistakes that create the most rework.
Published 19 Sept 2026· 568 words
Purpose
compare vendor quotations for an RFQ using prices and commercial conditions. The key is to treat ME49 as one step in an end-to-end process. What users see here is often determined earlier by master data, document status, organizational assignments or configuration, so always capture those inputs before changing the transaction result.
When it is used
ME49 is typically used when procurement chooses a preferred quotation after vendor responses are recorded. It is also valuable in integration and regression testing because the resulting document/status provides objective evidence of whether upstream data and configuration are aligned. Narrow the working population first so any change can be reconciled safely.
How to use it in practice
- Select the RFQ or quotation population.
- Verify every vendor response is complete and comparable.
- Review effective price and relevant conditions, not only headline unit price.
- Investigate outliers for currency, unit or delivery-cost differences.
- Document the commercial decision before creating follow-on purchasing documents.
Key data objects
These fields and business objects usually explain the result in ME49. Put them into support tickets and test evidence so another consultant can reproduce the same state instead of working from a generic symptom.
- RFQ — verify the exact value, status, organizational context and date relevance.
- vendors — verify the exact value, status, organizational context and date relevance.
- net/effective price — verify the exact value, status, organizational context and date relevance.
- currency — verify the exact value, status, organizational context and date relevance.
- ranking/comparison result — verify the exact value, status, organizational context and date relevance.
How to prove it in the data
Prove the issue through document flow and chronology. Start with the source requirement or document, identify the exact master/configuration keys used, then inspect the generated logistics or accounting document and its status. For quantity issues, reconcile ordered, received, delivered, invoiced and current/historical stock; for value issues, reconcile pricing, account determination and the FI document.
ECC vs S/4HANA
ME49 remains a useful classic sourcing comparison on S/4HANA where RFQ processing is performed in ERP rather than an external sourcing platform. In an S/4HANA program, keep valid GUI transactions as support tools but use the strategic Fiori, workflow, embedded analytics and clean-core integration patterns where they provide the preferred business surface.
Common pitfalls and how to diagnose them
- Selecting the lowest displayed price without checking units or conditions. Check the complete document flow before applying a workaround.
- Including incomplete quotation responses in the ranking. Check the complete document flow before applying a workaround.
- Treating the comparison as approval to bypass sourcing governance. Check the complete document flow before applying a workaround.
Whose problem this is
Primary ownership sits with MM/P2P depending on the transaction, with Finance joining where accounting is created and EWM/integration teams joining where execution happens outside core ERP. Escalate with document numbers, organizational keys, date, expected result and proven status.
Related SAP objects
Reviewed pages this object connects to in the ERPClimb knowledge graph.
Source: ERPClimb — https://erpclimb.com/sap-tcodes/me49ERPClimb is an independent platform and is not affiliated with SAP SE. Reference pages are written and reviewed by SAP consultants for learning and troubleshooting.