The instinct to replace tools is strong and frequently wrong. Somebody arrives, sees an unfamiliar stack, and recommends what they know. That recommendation may be genuinely better in the abstract and it is not free: migration takes time, the data rarely transfers perfectly, and the period where nobody is fluent produces mistakes that the previous arrangement had already eliminated.
Establish what is actually failing before evaluating anything else. Frequently the frustration comes from a process built around a tool rather than from the tool itself, and changing software carries that process across unchanged. Describing what you are trying to accomplish, rather than what the current tool makes difficult, sometimes reveals that the workflow was the constraint.
The other common finding is that the tool does the thing and nobody knew. A substantial share of dissatisfaction comes from using a capable product at a fraction of its capability, and an hour with the documentation for the specific annoyance resolves it more often than people expect. Switching resets that learning rather than solving anything.
Where a change is genuinely warranted, the reasons are recognisable. The tool cannot do something you need and no configuration will make it. It has no path for a second person. It cannot export your data in a usable form. Or its cost has risen to a level that no longer matches what it provides. Those are structural rather than preferential.
Consider whether the tool fits alongside everything else rather than judging it alone, since integration is where a stack either works or does not. A perfectly good product that cannot connect to your accounting or your customer records creates manual work that outweighs its individual merits, and that is a legitimate reason to change something that functions well on its own.
If a change is needed, do it once rather than gradually. Running two systems in parallel because the migration was incomplete is worse than either, and it is the usual outcome of a switch begun without deciding in advance what happens to the historical data.
Check the exit before committing to anything new, which is the discipline that prevents repeating this. Whether your data leaves in a usable format, and whether you could operate it without the person who set it up. A tool you cannot leave is a tool that will eventually be the thing you are stuck with.
Then be honest about whether the recommendation serves you or the person making it. Somebody who works predominantly in one platform will find reasons to use it, and that is not dishonesty. It is a reason to ask what specifically your current tool prevents.
Separate the tools you would defend from the ones you have simply not examined, because those are different positions. Something you know well and use daily deserves the benefit of the doubt. Something inherited and never questioned is worth looking at properly rather than defending by default.
Keep a note of what each tool is for, since that record is what allows the question to be answered properly next time somebody suggests replacing something. A stack nobody can describe is a stack that gets changed on somebody else's judgement rather than yours.
Confirm that everything still connects after any change elsewhere, since tools frequently depend on each other in ways nobody documented and a change in one can break a link nobody was watching.