I think /u/textandtrowel gave a good assessment. I would just add that the book Africa's Development in Historical Perspective by Akyeampong, Bates, Nunn and Robinson from 2014 repeatedly cites Great Divergence as well as The World That Trade Created by Pomeranz and Topik.

Africa's Development notes that Great Divergence is primarily focused on comparisons of Europe and China, as has much of the conversation in the field of economic history:

The consequence is a relative void of convincing narratives of African economic history even in its own terms, let alone in a comparative context. For example, the big debates in comparative economic history over the past twenty years have focused squarely on questions such as the divergence between Europe and Asia (Findlay and O’Rourke 2007 ; Jones 1981 ; Morris 2011 ; Pomeranz 2000 ; Rosenthal and Wong 2011 ; Van Zanden 2009 ; Wong 1997 ) or on why Britain diverged from Western Europe (Allen 2009 ; Mokyr 2009 ). In no study is there any reference to Africa or to its divergence from the other economies of the world. Why this occurred has never been one of the big questions in either economic history or comparative economic development.

Hence their effort to expand upon the economic/developmental history of Africa and to integrate it into the comparative world picture.

So, my sense is that Great Divergence is influential for setting an agenda for historical inquiry, but that there has been a great deal of responses and critiques which have expanded the field of inquiry beyond what Pomeranz first laid down (including Parthasarathi). Great Divergence is a thought-provoking work well worth reading, but don't stop with it.

I'm no particular expert in this field and won't try to summarize or critique Pomeranz's work and its current reception. However, I've had success teaching Prasannan Parthasarathi's Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not : Global Economic Divergence, 1600–1850 (2011). One review notes that Parthasarathi has basically built on and expanded Pomeranz's thesis to argue that not only China but also India was doing pretty well up to the late 1700s. In the chapters I assign (it's been a while since I read the whole work), Parthasarathi cites Pomeranz primarily to take issue with his evidence or analysis, so I think it stands as a significant departure.

It remains the "go to" book for clarifyng what the "big question" is and articulating one side in an ongoing debate. As an answer it's sorely deficient, and the flaws are becoming ever more apparent, not that they weren't spotted at the time. Probably the most succinct debunking is by Philip Huang (Development or involution in eighteenth-century Britain and China, Journal of Asian Studies 61:2, May 2002), who highlights Pomeranz's cavalier use of questionable data to generate a far rosier picture of Qing economic performance than can realiastically be ascertained. Even Pomeranz has rowed back from some of his more gung-ho assertions, acknowledging for instance that low urban wages offer little support for notions of a land braced for industrial take-off but for coal or colonies.

You'll gather that I don't have a high opinion of the book, which to me reads like it was rushed into publication when a few more years of data collection and fact-checking and a generally more rigorous approach might have yielded something far better. That's a shame as Pomeranz seems a decent fellow motivated by a sincere desire to overcome past eurocentric perspectives, and ready to acknowledge error where the evidence is against him. Though narrower in focus, Huang's The peasant family and rural development in the Yangzi Delta 1350-1988 and Li Bozhong's Agricultural development in Jiangnan 1620-1850 are far better expositions of the foundations for the two competing points of view.