Signal collection
Cross-checked user-review platforms (G2, Capterra, PeerSpot, SoftwareAdvice, SelectHub), Infor documentation, implementation partner writeups, and ERP research sources.
ERP Opportunity Research · May 2026
Infor M3 Ecosystem Opportunity Map
A synthesis of 30+ evidence signals across user reviews, Infor documentation, practitioner workflows, and ecosystem products to identify where M3-adjacent support applications have the strongest commercial and implementation fit.
32signals
Raw evidence points clustered into 12 opportunity themes
12clusters
Problem clusters scored across pain, underserved-ness, fit, and feasibility
5top bets
Opportunities scoring 4.45+ and aligned with CRM + virtual warehouse direction
6000+APIs
M3 API transactions exposed via REST and ION API Gateway
01Methodology & source posture
Cluster method
32 raw signals were translated into JTBD statements, grouped into 12 thematic clusters, then ranked by weighted composite score.
Scoring formula
0.25 × Pain + 0.20 × Underserved + 0.20 × App Fit + 0.15 × API Fit + 0.10 × Frequency + 0.10 × Strategic Fit.
Confidence labels
Evidenced = backed by two or more independent sources; Inferred = logical extension from evidence; Hypothesis = plausible but unverified.
Caution
Research caveat
Evidence is drawn from review platforms, Infor documentation, partner implementation sources, and practitioner material. M3 deployments vary by version, industry skin, and tenant customization. Validate assumptions through direct customer interviews before committing build scope.
Inference
The strongest demand evidence in this landscape is operational and market-behavioral, not social-discussion volume: who is hiring for the manual workflow, who already sells a point solution, and where practitioners repeatedly describe the same pain language.
02Scored cluster table
12 clusters discovered from 32 signals. Top 5 are expanded into full opportunity cards.
| Cluster | Pain | Freq | Unders | App Fit | API Fit | Strat | Score | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sales Order Exception Workbench | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.00 | #1 |
| Supplier Confirmation & Delivery Follow-up | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4.45 | #2 |
| Customer Delivery Status & Proactive Communication | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4.90 | #3 |
| Multi-Site Stock Decision & Shortage Routing | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4.45 | #4 |
| Customer Returns & Claims Coordination | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4.55 | #5 |
| Master Data Friction & Operational Errors | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.75 | #6 |
| Approval & Credit Hold Escalation | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.70 | #7 |
| Distributor / Branch Portal & Self-Service | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.60 | #8 |
| Batch Order Entry Error Triage | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3.45 | #9 |
| Demand Sensing & Exception Replenishment | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.30 | #10 |
| Lot / Batch Traceability Communication | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.10 | #11 |
| Transport & Carrier Tracking Bridge | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.00 | #12 |
Composite = 0.25 Pain + 0.20 Underserved + 0.20 App Fit + 0.15 API Fit + 0.10 Freq + 0.10 Strategic Fit
03Top 5 opportunities
Each card captures problem statement, team-level workflow reality, integration points, demand signal quality, risk framing, and interview prompts for discovery validation.
Opportunity 1 · Rank #1
5.00Composite
Sales Order Exception Workbench
A unified triage surface for blocked, delayed, and at-risk customer orders across statuses, warehouses, and reps.
Problem statement
When lines stall in M3 (ATP shortages, batch-entry errors, credit holds, delayed allocations), teams have no single view of what is blocked, why, owner, and customer impact. Reps hop across OIS300, OIS275, MMS087 and spreadsheet exports just to understand one customer story.
Target users
- Inside sales reps
- Customer service teams
- Order management coordinators
- Sales managers handling escalations
Current workaround
- Manual M3 report export to Excel for blocked-line tracking
- Daily status calls between reps and logistics
- Rep-specific note systems in Outlook/Teams
- Live M3 lookup while customer is on call
Why external, not inside M3
M3 exception programs are program-centric, not customer- or outcome-centric. A support app can unify exception context with ownership, SLA clocks, and CRM signal without reworking M3 UI.
Suggested module
- Live queue grouped by exception reason and sortable by revenue risk and age
- Per-item action panel: reassign, annotate, escalate, and push selected actions back to M3
- Customer context sidebar: open orders, claims, account health
- Configurable SLA alerts and unresolved digest
- Substitute-item workflow for shortage scenarios
M3 integration points
Evidence
G2 users repeatedly describe manual data management and Excel-heavy fallback. (g2.com)
evidencedInfor docs show delayed issues and shortage handling but no collaborative exception workflow. (docs.infor.com)
evidencedION workflow patterns confirm event-driven escalation is feasible outside M3 core screens. (doppiogroup.com)
evidencedFit with existing application
Very high fit: your CRM and virtual-warehouse data model already contains the customer and stock context this module needs.
Top risks
- Status-model behavior varies by customer configuration and will need per-instance tuning.
- Write-back actions (for holds and line changes) require strict role authorization.
- ION event latency may require polling fallback for high-SLA environments.
Validation questions
- How many blocked or delayed lines stay open over 24 hours each week?
- How do reps currently discover an order stall before a customer asks?
- Who owns shortage-resolution decisions in practice?
- How much revenue is tied to unresolved exception lines?
Demand validation
Strong demandReddit signal is weak for M3-specific posts, but cross-channel evidence from verified M3 reviews and distribution workflow sources is consistently strong on manual exception triage pain.
Community / channel map
| Channel | Platform | Signal | Why it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| r/supplychain | Weak (M3-specific) | General SCM pain but little M3-attributed detail | |
| G2 Infor M3 reviews | Review platform | Strong | Verbatim user language on daily manual workflow pain |
| M3 consultants / practitioner blogs | LinkedIn + industry | Strong | High-fidelity scenarios around order delays and rep burden |
Top discussions / sources
- G2 — Infor M3 Reviews — Repeated manual-management and Excel-language from verified users.
- Bizowie — Customer Experience in Distribution — Explicit multi-system call-handling pain narrative.
- SoftwareAdvice — Infor M3 — UI and API friction language confirming operator burden.
Language buckets
pain
- Very difficult for users to manage data manually.
- Checking multiple systems while customer waits.
workaround
- Download to Excel for daily tracking.
- Cobble together process to compensate missing workflow.
failed
- Limited automation and fragmented UI leads to frustration.
wish
- One queue focused on exceptional situations.
Willing-to-pay signal
Industry sources quantify meaningful margin loss from delayed exception handling, indicating this is budgetable operational pain rather than soft UX dissatisfaction.
Candidate headlines
- Stop checking three systems to answer one customer call
- Every blocked order visible. One queue. One owner.
- Your Excel workaround for order exceptions has a shelf life
Opportunity 2 · Rank #2
4.45Composite
Supplier Confirmation & Delivery Follow-up Hub
Automate supplier confirmation chases, capture ETA updates, and escalate late responses before they block downstream orders.
Problem statement
M3 records PO confirmation state, but obtaining confirmations remains a manual chase across email, phone, and spreadsheets. Partial confirmations and discrepancy handling stay labor-intensive with weak escalation structure.
Target users
- Procurement coordinators
- Supply chain planners
- Receiving / logistics teams
- Operations managers
Current workaround
- Spreadsheet tracker of unconfirmed POs
- Scheduled reminder calls and inbox triage
- Manual ETA notes passed verbally to planning
- Outlook reminders for buyer follow-up
Why external, not inside M3
M3 monitoring lists track state but do not orchestrate supplier communication loops, SLA-based escalation, or impact visibility on customer commitments.
Suggested module
- Open-PO dashboard by confirmation state and days overdue
- Configurable chase cadence per supplier
- Supplier response form (no M3 login)
- Discrepancy flagging and M3 write-back for confirmed updates
- Impact bridge: which customer commitments rely on late PO lines
M3 integration points
Evidence
Infor documentation explicitly notes manual handling for partial delivery confirmations. (docs.infor.com)
evidencedShipment advice workflows in practice remain email/fax-assisted unless EDI maturity is high. (docs.infor.com)
evidencedERP ecosystems are now shipping dedicated supplier-follow-up agents, validating category demand. (Microsoft Learn)
evidencedFit with existing application
High fit: inbound supplier confirmation quality directly affects outbound stock promises in your existing virtual-warehouse module.
Top risks
- Supplier adoption of external forms may be mixed and require email-log fallback.
- Status and tolerance handling in write-back flows must match each M3 setup.
- EDI-heavy suppliers reduce the value of chase automation for a subset of accounts.
Validation questions
- What share of suppliers still confirm via email/phone?
- How long is average confirmation lag for non-EDI suppliers?
- How often do confirmation delays break customer promise dates?
- Where do teams currently track follow-up ownership?
Demand validation
Strong demandThis opportunity shows the clearest market signal: major ERP vendors and standalone tools already ship supplier-follow-up automation products, proving the workflow gap and willingness to pay.
Community / channel map
| Channel | Platform | Signal | Why it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microsoft D365 documentation | Vendor docs | Strong | Dedicated supplier-communications agent launched |
| Job postings | LinkedIn / hiring boards | Strong | Full-time roles exist to execute manual follow-up |
| r/supplychain | Weak (M3-specific) | Pain discussed generally, not tied to M3 implementation detail |
Top discussions / sources
- Microsoft D365 — Supplier Communications Agent — Competitor-level feature validation for late/unconfirmed PO workflows.
- SPS Commerce — Order Management Process — Explicit language around chasing confirmations and uncertainty.
- Infor docs — PPS250 — Manual partial-confirmation burden confirmed in system behavior.
Language buckets
pain
- Suppliers confirm days later, if at all.
- Teams waste hours chasing updates.
workaround
- Email/phone follow-up loops with spreadsheet trackers.
- Manual ETA updates entered after contact.
failed
- Partial deliveries cannot be confirmed automatically.
wish
- Auto-drafted reminders and supplier confirmations in workflow.
Willing-to-pay signal
Headcount is already allocated to manual expediting in many companies, and competitor product investment signals direct monetizable urgency.
Candidate headlines
- Your buyers spend half their day emailing suppliers
- Suppliers confirm days later, if at all
- Stop hiring people to chase PO confirmations
Opportunity 3 · Rank #3
4.90Composite
Customer Delivery Transparency & Proactive Communication
Push delivery-state updates to customers before they call by bridging M3 status events into a branded customer-facing channel.
Problem statement
M3 manages delivery lifecycle internally but does not provide a modern, proactive, customer-facing status flow. The result is repeated WISMO calls, rep load, and avoidable relationship friction.
Target users
- B2B customers and dealer accounts
- Customer service reps
- Key account managers
- Logistics coordinators
Current workaround
- Manual status calls and emails from reps
- Letter-of-Excuse PDFs for delivery changes
- Internal-only widgets that customers cannot access
- Reactive updates only after complaint
Why external, not inside M3
Customers should not use internal ERP interfaces. A read-only external portal can translate M3 status events into understandable, role-safe communication and alerts.
Suggested module
- Customer portal with open orders, line status, ETA, and shipment events
- Proactive email/SMS status notifications
- Delay-notice drafting flow for rep review
- Context note overrides before outbound sends
- Self-service request and urgency flagging
M3 integration points
Evidence
OIS610 is a static document process, not a live customer communication channel. (docs.infor.com)
evidencedCustomer Order Lookup depends on Infor OS access and is not an end-customer experience. (docs.infor.com)
evidencedPractitioner material repeatedly frames "Where is my order?" call volume as a dominant service burden. (bizowie.com)
inferredFit with existing application
Very high fit: this extends your CRM layer from internal visibility into external customer communication quality.
Top risks
- Status freshness depends on warehouse execution discipline.
- Customers may expect transactional edits unless scope is explicit.
- Complex split-delivery scenarios may need industry-specific message templates.
Validation questions
- What percent of CS inbound volume is order-status questions?
- Who approves outbound delay messaging today?
- Do customers already have any external portal experience?
- How often do changed dates trigger complaint escalations?
Demand validation
Strong demandThe M3-specific Reddit footprint is thin, but broader B2B distribution evidence strongly validates WISMO pain and the need for proactive order visibility.
Community / channel map
| Channel | Platform | Signal | Why it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distribution practitioner blogs | Industry | Strong | Repeated real scenarios of order-status call volume |
| LinkedIn M3 practitioners | Moderate | KPI references tied to customer-service complaint reduction | |
| r/supplychain | Weak (M3-specific) | Not enough M3-labeled customer-portal discussion |
Top discussions / sources
- Bizowie — Customer Experience in Distribution — Verbatim "why do I have to call?" narratives.
- CloudSuite — Build B2B Customer Portal — Operational framing of repetitive inbound status questions.
- TrueCommerce supply-chain challenges — Real-time tracking positioned as competitive requirement.
Language buckets
pain
- Where is my order? remains a recurring inbound call type.
- Status updates are time-consuming and frustrating for both sides.
workaround
- Rep checks ERP live and calls back with updates.
- Delay notices sent manually by email/PDF.
failed
- Internal-only widgets do not solve external customer access.
wish
- Proactive, real-time status updates without customer calls.
Willing-to-pay signal
Call deflection and complaint reduction provide direct operational ROI, especially for high-volume B2B customer-service teams.
Candidate headlines
- Customers should not call to ask for basic order status
- Proactive delivery updates before the complaint
- Turn WISMO calls into automated trust-building notifications
Opportunity 4 · Rank #4
4.45Composite
Multi-Site Stock Decision & Shortage Routing Console
Turn shortage decisions into a guided, fast workflow when one site is short and another holds viable stock.
Problem statement
M3 supports ATP and planning, but tactical routing decisions in shortage events remain difficult for non-planner roles. Teams rely on daily exports, ad-hoc calls, and planning meetings.
Target users
- Sales reps
- Supply chain coordinators
- Planning teams
- Key account managers
Current workaround
- Daily stock export distribution
- Manual allocation meetings
- Phone-based warehouse checks
- Verbal transfer decisions recorded later
Why external, not inside M3
Planners have specialist tools, but customer-facing and coordination roles need a narrower, guided decision layer with direct business impact visibility.
Suggested module
- Cross-site stock heatmap with availability, allocations, and in-transit context
- Shortage queue ranked by customer priority and revenue at risk
- Source recommendation with lead-time and freight considerations
- One-click distribution-order proposal creation
- Substitute-item proposals with M3-backed eligibility
M3 integration points
Evidence
Multi-program navigation and delayed shortage visibility are documented frictions in core workflows. (docs.infor.com)
evidencedPartner ecosystem includes paid M3 apps for allocation visibility, indicating real demand. (marketplace.novacura.com)
evidencedMulti-site imbalance is frequently called out in practitioner material and ERP advisory research. (inoday)
inferredFit with existing application
Very high fit: direct extension of virtual-warehouse capability from visibility into guided shortage action.
Top risks
- Write-back on substitution and transfer flows can trigger complex downstream business logic.
- Data Lake latency may be too slow for some real-time promises.
- Freight and transfer logic varies widely by deployment and needs configurable policy.
Validation questions
- How are shortage decisions currently made and by whom?
- How many inter-site transfer decisions happen each week?
- Are substitute-item rules reliable and maintained?
- What SLA exists for resolving shortage-risk customer lines?
Demand validation
Moderate demandValidated as a recurring multi-site planning pain, but language intensity is more analytical than emotional and often concentrated in planner workflows.
Community / channel map
| Channel | Platform | Signal | Why it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Novacura marketplace | Partner ecosystem | Moderate | Paid niche apps confirm visibility gap |
| ERP practitioner content | Industry blogs | Moderate | Frequent imbalance and shortage narratives |
| r/supplychain | Weak (M3-specific) | Low product-specific signal depth |
Top discussions / sources
- Novacura Marketplace — Infor M3 apps — Allocation-visibility tools sold as standalone modules.
- Inoday — multi-site manufacturing guide — Inventory imbalance and reporting delay framing.
- Infor OIS009 shortage behavior — Shortage and rerouting friction grounded in core process.
Language buckets
pain
- Overstock at one site and shortage at another is recurring.
- Shortage events require fast cross-location decisions.
workaround
- Daily stock exports and meeting-driven allocation decisions.
failed
- Planner-heavy tools not practical for sales-facing users.
wish
- Real-time multi-site stock view with actionable routing guidance.
Willing-to-pay signal
Moderate but credible: paid niche apps and custom tooling investment suggest budget exists, though urgency is role-dependent.
Candidate headlines
- Overstocked in one warehouse, shorted in another
- Your daily stock export is not a decision engine
- Resolve shortage routing in seconds, not meetings
Opportunity 5 · Rank #5
4.55Composite
Customer Returns & Claims Coordination Hub
Create a single, structured returns thread for customers, reps, warehouse, and finance instead of fragmented email chains.
Problem statement
M3 handles return transactions, but the communication and coordination around requests, evidence collection, approvals, and customer status remains manual and fragmented.
Target users
- Customer service reps
- Warehouse / receiving teams
- Finance and AR teams
- Quality teams and dealer customers
Current workaround
- Return initiated via rep phone/email
- RMA details shared manually
- Inspection and credit updates relayed outside M3
- Root-cause patterns hidden in isolated records
Why external, not inside M3
M3 records transactions but not the full cross-party conversation. A support application can own intake, routing, status transparency, and analytics while M3 remains source of record.
Suggested module
- Customer return-request form with reason and attachments
- Reason-code routing by function (QC, logistics, finance)
- Customer timeline from request through credit issuance
- Internal assignee + SLA + escalation workspace
- Analytics on return reasons by SKU, customer, and rep
M3 integration points
Evidence
Customer return creation and credit-note steps are manual in standard M3 flows. (docs.infor.com)
evidencedM3 CRM is regularly described as basic for customer-interaction depth. (erpresearch.com)
evidencedSpecialized returns platforms (Continuum, RMAPortal) show active, funded market demand for this exact workflow class. (gocontinuum.ai)
evidencedFit with existing application
High fit: this is the post-delivery extension of customer-order relationship handling already central to your product direction.
Top risks
- Return sequencing rules can vary by instance and by physical receipt constraints.
- Attachment and evidence handling may depend on IDM readiness.
- Credit-note automation touches finance controls and needs explicit approval design.
Validation questions
- What is current return-to-credit cycle time and target?
- Where does most delay happen: intake, inspection, or credit issuance?
- How do teams track recurring defects and repeat claims today?
- What channels do customers use to initiate returns now?
Demand validation
Strong demandStrongest willingness-to-pay profile across all five opportunities, supported by live SaaS products and named industrial customer testimonials describing the exact manual pain pattern.
Community / channel map
| Channel | Platform | Signal | Why it fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuum | SaaS product | Strong | Focused product category with explicit manual-pain language |
| RMAPortal | SaaS product | Strong | Named enterprise testimonials and process ROI framing |
| r/supplychain | Weak (B2B returns-specific) | Little M3-attributed returns workflow detail |
Top discussions / sources
- Continuum — B2B returns — Verbatim claims around chaotic manual workflows and 90-day ROI.
- RMAPortal testimonial — Named industrial users describing email/spreadsheet pain replaced.
- Infor OIS390/OIS393 docs — Return and credit-note process split across manual steps.
Language buckets
pain
- Returns process described as chaotic, manual, and costly.
- Delays, duplicate claims, and AR disputes are common.
workaround
- Multiple emails, spreadsheets, and shared-drive artifacts.
- Rep-mediated evidence collection and follow-up.
failed
- ERP-native return flows capture transaction but not collaboration.
wish
- Customer-facing portal with transparent claim timeline.
Willing-to-pay signal
Strongest signal: active funded products, public testimonials, and explicit ROI claims in near-term deployment windows.
Candidate headlines
- Returns should not require three emails and one spreadsheet
- Your AR disputes are a workflow signal, not a finance mystery
- Give dealers a returns portal and stop running returns by inbox
04Appendix — signals and JTBDs
Collected signals (sample)
S01G2 ReviewsEvidenced
Users export M3 data to Excel constantly for cross-order and cross-customer analysis.
Workaround: Excel exports remain the default for exception analysis.
S02SoftwareAdviceEvidenced
Some M3 programs still have API coverage gaps.
Workaround: Use ION BOD or Data Lake fallback where direct API is absent.
S03SoftwareAdviceEvidenced
Legacy UI complexity blocks non-power users from fast operational triage.
Workaround: Power users proxy ERP lookup for front-line teams.
S04CapterraEvidenced
Multi-division pricing and shared-customer handling remain difficult.
Workaround: Manual overrides and spreadsheet reconciliation.
S05Infor OIS009Evidenced
Shortage status transitions do not automatically trigger proactive communication.
Workaround: Reps discover issues reactively during checks or calls.
S06Infor OIS275Evidenced
Batch-order errors require manual correction with weak queueing support.
Workaround: Dedicated operator and morning error routines.
S07Infor PPS250Evidenced
Partial delivery confirmation handling remains manual.
Workaround: Manual line splitting and planner notifications.
S08Infor PPS260/PPS270Evidenced
Shipment advice often enters by manual entry for non-EDI suppliers.
Workaround: ETA knowledge lives in inboxes and calls.
S09Infor MMS087Evidenced
Delayed-issues view depends on MRP rerun and is not intraday real-time.
Workaround: Repeat MRP cycles for visibility refresh.
S10Infor OIS610Evidenced
Letter-of-Excuse is static and point-in-time.
Workaround: Manual PDF/email communication loop.
S11Infor OIS390/OIS393Evidenced
Returns and credit issuance require multiple manual ERP steps.
Workaround: Rep-mediated intake and status relays.
S12Novacura MarketplaceEvidenced
External app ecosystem already monetizes M3 UX/support gaps.
Workaround: Teams buy adjacent apps for narrow operational use cases.
Job-to-be-done list
- Sales rep is trying to identify all blocked or delayed customer orders but struggles with multi-program navigation and no consolidated exception view.
- Sales rep and customer service teams are trying to communicate delays proactively but struggle with no automated outbound communication channel.
- Procurement coordinator is trying to confirm supplier delivery dates but struggles with unstructured email and phone follow-up loops.
- Supply chain planner is trying to reroute shortages quickly but struggles with delayed issue refresh and fragmented stock context.
- Customer is trying to check order or return status without calling a rep but struggles with no external M3-accessible portal.
- Customer service rep is trying to manage return lifecycle from request to credit note but struggles with multi-step manual flows split across programs.
- Logistics coordinator is trying to resolve batch-entry errors within SLA but struggles with no owner assignment or escalation path.
- Planning team is trying to choose source warehouse in shortage events but struggles with planner-only tools and fragmented data.
- Sales manager is trying to prioritize high-value at-risk orders but struggles with no revenue-weighted, cross-rep dashboard.
- Procurement manager is trying to map unconfirmed POs to customer impact but struggles with no communication orchestration layer.
- Key account manager is trying to promise reliable ETAs under stock pressure but struggles with manual warehouse and ERP triangulation.
- Quality and finance teams are trying to detect recurring return-root causes but struggle with isolated records and no claim analytics layer.
- Integration team is trying to build reliable external workflows but struggles with uneven API coverage across programs.
- Operations manager is trying to measure supplier reliability but struggles with no proactive operational scoring and alerting.
- Distributor/dealer is trying to manage downstream customers but struggles with no shared external visibility into supplier-held stock and order states.
05Demand validation
Caution
Channel reality
M3-specific Reddit signal is weak. Validation quality is strongest in review language, practitioner implementations, competitor product investment, and hiring patterns around manual process burden.
Cross-opportunity validation overview
| Opportunity | Best channel | Language | Competitor | WTP | Verdict | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 — Order Exception Console | Weak | G2 + practitioner blogs | Strong | Multiple OMS products | Moderate | Strong |
| 02 — Supplier Follow-up Hub | Weak | D365 + job-posting evidence | Strong | D365 Supplier Agent | Strong | Strong |
| 03 — Delivery Transparency | Weak | Distribution CX sources | Strong | B2B portal landscape | Moderate | Strong |
| 04 — Stock Routing Console | Weak | Novacura + planning sources | Moderate | Niche partner apps | Moderate | Moderate |
| 05 — Returns & Claims Hub | Weak | Continuum + RMAPortal | Strongest | Funded category players | Strongest | Strong |