Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Axway Appcelerator vs Magic xpa Application Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 4, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Axway Appcelerator
Ranking in Mobile Development Platforms
14th
Average Rating
6.2
Reviews Sentiment
3.5
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (8th)
Magic xpa Application Platform
Ranking in Mobile Development Platforms
12th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Application Server (10th), Application Infrastructure (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Mobile Development Platforms category, the mindshare of Axway Appcelerator is 2.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Magic xpa Application Platform is 3.5%, up from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile Development Platforms Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Magic xpa Application Platform3.5%
Axway Appcelerator2.8%
Other93.7%
Mobile Development Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

NM
Senior Software Engineer at a tech services company
Makes it easy to build cross-platform with cloud-based, one-click app build system
I was searching for a reliable tool to develop a native mobile app for both Android and iOS. I found Axway Appcelerator packed with awesome features, that it was easy to learn and easy to build cross-platform Using the same web technology to develop cross-platform native apps. Cloud-based…
Mylsamy T. - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Associate - IT at Himalaya Wellness Company
Enables us to develop more than 90 applications in-house, which are used across our organization
It's a bit difficult to work with purely web-based applications to get the data and display it. There have been a few times when the connection was disconnected between the server and your browser. The connectivity on browser-built applications needs to be improved. The mobile application development could be easier. They could include different external applications, like finger sensors. I'm not sure whether it's in version 3.8 or not.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Enables me to use the same web technology to develop cross-platform native apps. The cloud-based one-click app build system is a valuable feature as well."
"Magic’s unique approach to development ensures that the programmer stays focused on the objective of the program (i.e. display all customers in California), instead of the repetitive tasks that surround it (i.e. connect to database, open customers table, create the query to retrieve records within the specified criteria, fetch the result of the query, connect it to a data grid, etc.)."
"xpa gives us a fast development speed."
"The solution makes the managing and adapting of the software very easy."
"What I found most valuable in the Magic xpa Application Platform is that it has a client-server and web browser technology that's perfect for company users."
"Without the need to compile code, the time spent in the development cycle is greatly reduced, allowing the programmer to test modifications to a program immediately after they have been saved."
"Speed of development and database connectivity (MS SQL, Oracle, DB2, Btrieve/Pervasive PSQL, ODBC, MySql, and SQLite)."
"The best feature of Magic is the development time. The time it takes to develop something is incredibly fast if you compare Magic with, for example, Java."
"The ability to use the same development environment for both Windows and Android applications. Magic xpa also supports iOS applications."
 

Cons

"It would be awesome if they would work on improving the speed of the app building process."
"Scalability is not so good if you have a complex UX."
"They want to be one toolbox for everything, but primarily, we are using xpa to develop desktop applications, and in that area they're lacking functionalities, flexibility, and modern stuff."
"The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy."
"It is missing basic charting tools for bar/pie/series charts. It is left to the developer to acquire and deploy charting tools or the customer to purchase a third-party reporting tool to produce charts."
"In the next version of the Magic xpa Application Platform, I want tables or small programs where I can directly add expressions. I can do it on SQL, but it would make life much easier if that specification were added to the platform."
"Throughout my career, I've encountered difficulties when integrating new technologies with Magic xpa Application Platform. In particular, when attempting to incorporate features from other development languages into earlier versions of the solution called uniPaaS. I struggled to integrate .NET components due to the limited options available. This made the process more challenging and complicated. I find it challenging to create a more user-friendly experience for users who may be comparing the system to other systems they have used outside or within the company on different platforms."
"The user interface could be improved to be more friendly for developers."
"I would like to see a spell checker included with optional language support. Currently, this has to be purchased from a third-party."
"The configuration of the xpa RIA mobile environment is complex and a discouragement to new developers. Also, Magic's documentation can be less than complete at times which leads to frustration for new developers. (I encourage new Magic developers to join the Magic Users Group)."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Magic is not the cheapest IDE out there. If you are considering Magic xpa, you should do a cost-benefit analysis to feel comfortable with your decision. The Magic sales staff is very helpful in providing pricing."
"My clients have to purchase additional licenses in order to use what I built. It's not a fair approach."
"The licensing is too costly."
"The main problem with the Magic xpa Application Platform is pricing. You have to pay a lot of money for development, and you also have to pay a lot for the deployments and runtime, while in most competitors, you have to pay a lot for one of the two and not both."
"It's not cheap. The licenses are not cheap. Not at all. They cost much money. There are other tools with free licenses but Magic asks for a lot of money."
"The cost for developers is high because you have to pay for licenses as well as runtime."
"There are different licenses, we have the application and the online application. There are two different licenses for two different program sites for the Magic xpa Application Platform."
"The licensing cost varies because nowadays Magic has tailor-made offerings for clients. I think the solution is worth the money."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise1
 

Also Known As

Appcelerator Titanium, Appcelerator
uniPaaS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Bracket, Homes.com, Safeguard, Avis, Smuckers, VMWare, Zipcar, Mfoundry, Blackbaud
ADD, Cape plc, Adecco, Kuno Kinzoku Industry Co., GE Capital, Dove Tree, CBS Outdoor, Paris-Nord Villepinte Exhibition Center, Allstate Life Insurance Company, Titan Software Systems
Find out what your peers are saying about Axway Appcelerator vs. Magic xpa Application Platform and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.