We performed a comparison between Ionic and Magic xpa Application Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Mobile Development Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I like that I can place the code and escalate data storage. I also like that it's user-friendly. Nothing is complex in Ionic."
"With the Capacitor feature, you have access to the native attributes of your phone such as your camera. This makes work a lot easier."
"The solution can support many languages."
"Ionic's best features are its hybrid app development, design, and tags."
"Because it's a hybrid mobile app framework, it is easy for us to develop iOS as well as Android apps for our customers with the same resource skills. We didn't have to have separate iOS teams and Android teams to build the apps. We still have to use the Apple Xcode for iOS, but the main development happens with JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. We don't have to write separate code bases in scripts for iOS and Android. We create apps using web-based technology."
"Ionic is easy to upgrade and is helpful for design purposes. It also is quite common and easy to use. It is a very reliable application. It's easy to write on and print. The UI is easy to use as well. My organization chose to go with Ionic because we can access both Android and iOS applications."
"What I like the most about Ionic is live reloading, which enables us to develop new features without having to build the application again and re-check the functionality."
"The most valuable feature of Ionic is the ease of use and the simple connection of the applications. Additionally, the documentation is good in the Ionic application, and beginners can easily learn and download their own application using Ionic. Everyone can easily switch out, their domain, from native applications to hybrid applications."
"Magic is rapid, it's a tool which we use to develop, change and maintain our programs. xpa has a lot more features onboard and it gives us the opportunity to do such things so that we can easily adapt and maintain our programs. It gives certain benefits to stay with our customers and the market."
"The Magic xpa Application Platform is very suitable for production since it is easy to update. The program is simple to upgrade and deploy. The solution is convenient in production. You need to adjust the data, then adjust the program which is not difficult."
"Typically an experienced Magic developer can do the work of two to three experienced C#/.NET developers. Customers are amazed at how quickly most new features can be added and bug fixes implemented. I have worked for four employers - including myself - using Magic, and in most instances, bug fixes are addressed and deployed in under six hours."
"xpa gives us a fast development speed."
"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."
"Being able to make changes to existing programs to comply with last minute changes in requirements, and/or being able to fix, test, review, and deploy new code in a manner of hours instead of days, definitely gives us a huge advantage over our competitors and this is only possible thanks to Magic’s speed of programming."
"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."
"Speed of development and database connectivity (MS SQL, Oracle, DB2, Btrieve/Pervasive PSQL, ODBC, MySql, and SQLite)."
"There could be better support for augmented reality and other things. Geolocation and background app activity are some of the things that are a little more clumsy at the moment and could be improved."
"Documentation for migrations and compatibility is insufficient."
"Ionic's UI component doesn't always look like the native mobile app."
"Ionic would be improved with dynamic design features."
"There is a lack of a community environment."
"It would be good if the mobile version uses something other than JavaScript and HTML."
"It would be better if it had a speed niche system. There are a lot of things we need that weren't in the latest version. But I think they will be adding something."
"They started writing Capacitor to get rid of PhoneGap and Cordova, but they haven't yet got all the libraries and all the functionalities. They want you to start using Capacitor, but they don't have all the libraries there. They're developing them as they go. So, currently, you have to mix and match the three. When it comes to mobile applications, I would only like to use Capacitor. I don't want to jump between Cordova and Capacitor or have both of them. That's the main thing for me, but they have been working on it."
"The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy."
"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."
"Magic has a tradition, when it adds new technologies/features to the Magic development tool, to provide either no documentation or documentation that does not provide an organized approach for bringing this new technology/feature to experienced Magic programmers."
"There is room for improvement in Magic's marketing and licensing. I would like to see more integration of web functionality."
"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."
"I would like to see a spell checker included with optional language support. Currently, this has to be purchased from a third-party."
"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 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)."
More Magic xpa Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Ionic is ranked 6th in Mobile Development Platforms with 14 reviews while Magic xpa Application Platform is ranked 11th in Mobile Development Platforms with 10 reviews. Ionic is rated 8.6, while Magic xpa Application Platform is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Ionic writes "Great user acceptance and reliability, multiple teams not required, with prompt customer service". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Magic xpa Application Platform writes "Fast development and user-oriented functionalities, but it needs better .NET integration and a completely different pricing structure". Ionic is most compared with Xamarin Platform, OutSystems, Appium, Mendix and Appzillon Digital Platform, whereas Magic xpa Application Platform is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, Mendix, OutSystems and GeneXus. See our Ionic vs. Magic xpa Application Platform report.
See our list of best Mobile Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Mobile Development Platforms reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.