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

Magic xpa Application Platform vs Mendix vs OutSystems comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Mobile Development Platforms category, the mindshare of Magic xpa Application Platform is 4.2%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mendix is 21.3%, down from 21.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OutSystems is 20.5%, down from 22.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile Development Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Mylsamy T. - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Sameer Verma - PeerSpot reviewer
Low-code, helpful support, and great native mobile capability
There is always a layer of custom code required. There is a misconception of low-code, or Mendix, or the industry in general. They are perceived as more of a dashboarding tool, and as a visualization platform only, rather than building a complete enterprise solution. That's more of an awareness marketing challenge they have, or the industry has. In general, AI needs to be better. The team and the company is running ahead with this a bit more. AI area is something which companies have started to pick up on, low-code wise, and they should invest in it more. I would like to see their data hub module become a little bit more mature. They need to expand their base as the concept is amazing. We just need to see more use cases and learn more capabilities there, and then definitely they need to fill in the AI piece of it.
Bireswar Das - PeerSpot reviewer
A low-code platform for the development of mobile and web enterprise applications
To illustrate a case, the customer initially had a private cloud, essentially a data center hosted within it. They needed a disaster recovery solution, which would involve using a public cloud. This situation led to some deployment challenges due to the hybrid nature of their setup. However, once we implemented the solution for them, they were extremely satisfied. The process was not only effective but also quite speedy. To be more precise, we completed it in around 100 days, even though they initially requested it to be done in four months. They were very pleased with the efficiency of the implementation.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The ability to use the same development environment for both Windows and Android applications. Magic xpa also supports iOS applications."
"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 solution makes the managing and adapting of the software very easy."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It is a development platform which assists in accelerating your developmental lifecycle. This is one of its most valuable features. This solution also offers a good set of components that are readily available."
"It is stable."
"I highly regard Mendix because of its proper support, troubleshooting options, extensive learning path, and the availability of different types of exams."
"You can scale the solution."
"The most valuable features of the product are its ease of use and speed. My friend and I find it helpful as a team of just two developers."
"When I often want to pitch Mendix, if there is something out of the box that is not available, I can always extend Mendix. Whether it's the front end or the back end, It can be extended with Java. I've also built many widgets using Mendix."
"I find the fast development speed and low cost to be very valuable features of Mendix. It's a smart solution for busy developers when we need to apply new changes or fixes quickly. Mendix helps to save time and meet project deadlines faster."
"The features that I have found most valuable with Mendix are its business process management and its minimal low code, both from an interface perspective and from a process perspective."
"I really like the one-click publish feature in OutSystems. In other development tools/languages, it's not as easy. I also like how easily I can manage all my projects in one place."
"We can quickly develop an application using the tool."
"We can do the validation before calling the API."
"OutSystems' low-cost approach has positively impacted our productivity, because we were able to develop faster with OutSystems, enabling us to implement many changes during our sprint."
"The solution is all-encompassing and very easy to use with its drag-and-drop feature."
"Let's assume a project in .NET, native .NET, or Java takes around 12 months. In OutSystems, we can build that application in four to five months."
"One thing I like about OutSystems is that there's no lock-in. You can keep running your applications because it's on .NET and hosted centrally. That's one of the advantages I see there in terms of not having an IT strategy that has a dependency on a particular platform."
"You can go huge - so it is definitely a scalable solution."
 

Cons

"When you have several tasks, you open a screen in a task in developing mode, and you don't see the parent screens. Debugging lacks the effects to solve problems. You have to do it first in a kind of studio. Then you have to be sure that you can do it in Magic because there is almost nothing to debug it. It's practically impossible to debug. You have to be sure before you put your snippets."
"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."
"The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy."
"The user interface could be improved to be more friendly for developers."
"Support is very bad."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in Magic's marketing and licensing. I would like to see more integration of web functionality."
"Mendix is great for internal applications but not so great for a public-facing interface. It lacks a proper directory structure for public use. The URL will not change from page to page unless a deep link is created for each page. That makes it difficult to bookmark pages in the browser to view later on."
"While the community is great, they need to work on making their direct technical support services better."
"Mendix is quite expensive, and its pricing model makes it inaccessible for startups. The app license costs between $13,000 to $14,000, which is prohibitive for startups."
"Mendix could improve by allowing the customization of different programming languages, such as Python and C++."
"Needs multiple database connections so an app can directly read/write data to/from multiple databases. This would enable easy splitting of big applications that have complex entity relationships."
"There should be more integration with engineering applications and tighter integration for user authentication, such as single sign-on, etc. They have some of that. It just could be stronger."
"One area for improvement is its integration capabilities. Creating a pluggable widget or integrating it with other systems is challenging. In terms of features, it would be great to see advancements such as AI services and the integration of third-party services. Additionally, connecting external devices to the application requires multiple steps. Improving this will make it easier for the developers."
"All software applications have their hiccups, including the Mendix Studio Pro developers program."
"The technical features are good, but the actual commercialization is out of reach."
"There are not enough resources on the market."
"I like the OutSystems platform. I am working on integrating it with another platform using APIs, however, it has proven to be difficult. The main issue I am facing is obtaining authorization tokens as well as access and refresh tokens. It may be due to my lack of knowledge of APIs as it is new to me."
"I would like to see improvements in versioning. It can be challenging to keep track of what changes should be committed, especially when many developers are working in one environment."
"The solution is costly."
"Mobile apps should have been fully native."
"I think OutSystems needs to improve in many areas. First, sometimes Service Studio becomes really slow and even hangs for long periods. Also, if I have not published my module in some time, and some kind of Service Studio exception occurs, I lose my work."
"We'd like OutSystems to add stronger workflow-based automation similar to what Appian offers. It needs more workflow modeling and RPA features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"The licensing is too costly."
"My clients have to purchase additional licenses in order to use what I built. It's not a fair approach."
"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 cost for developers is high because you have to pay for licenses as well as runtime."
"The licensing cost varies because nowadays Magic has tailor-made offerings for clients. I think the solution is worth the money."
"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."
"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."
"Mendix licensing cost is based on the number of apps you have on the server. At the basic level, it is free of charge, so that seems reasonable, but once you go beyond that, and when it comes to the number of users on the app, that basic structure doesn't work, and the pricing tends to get a little bit steep."
"From a commercial point of view, we would like them to change that they currently sell it as a platform, but as a customer you have to decide upfront the usage of the platform. We would like to have Mendix sell it as a pay as you go model: You pay for what you use, and you don't pay for what you don't use."
"Mendix seems a bit expensive. But in terms of wanting to have less developers and higher velocity, the total cost of ownership is fine. It's not cheap, though."
"Initially, we started with a year for approximately $25,000, and if we need to expand the number of seats then we will increase it."
"I would not recommend the solution to small and medium-sized businesses because it’s expensive. It’s great for big organizations. I rate the pricing as a three out of ten."
"Pricing used to be complex, but Mendix has improved that quite a bit."
"Licensing costs are similar to those for all other IT technology, but they vary by region."
"Mendix is not open source, but its license cost is cheap, particularly when compared to the Appian license. The license model would depend on how many users you have and how many applications you are creating. If you are creating a single app, you just need to have a single app license, so it's free. If you want a multiple app license to cover two thousand or three thousand users, for example, internal users or external users, then you need to pay for the license. There's also a license model for above three thousand or four thousand, or five thousand internal and external users."
"There is a need to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs attached to OutSystems. It is an expensive product."
"Pricing could be a concern. You have to pay yearly, even after you have completed your development."
"As for licensing costs, I'm not directly involved in that aspect."
"The solution is expensive. The platform is not suitable for all of my clients. I work with labor unions and other smaller organizations that would not be able to afford the platform's current pricing model. It would be beneficial if there were a scaled-down version or a tiered pricing option that would allow me to build an app or a web app that is more cost-effective for my clients. Currently, the platform's pricing is too high for many of my clients, who would not be able to afford something in the $50,000 to $100,000 range."
"It is very high price."
"For a single application, it's too expensive."
"The tool’s licensing is based on the user’s usage."
"It is still very expensive, so small companies can’t generally afford it... Still, the time saving on development and delivery is worth the value."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
851,174 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
10%
Insurance Company
8%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
University
6%
Educational Organization
28%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Mendix?
We also use Mendix Enterprise Integration for complex business logic. It's a low-code platform, so we run Mendix in t...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Mendix?
I have some idea about the licensing part, and it depends on the person and the number of applications.
What needs improvement with Mendix?
Currently, I do not see any improvements needed in Mendix. However, I have not used Mendix for the last few months, s...
Which solution is better for developing non-ITSM applications: OutSystems or Service Now?
The short answer is that OutSystems is far better for 2 main reasons. Firstly, with Service Now you are locked into t...
What industries do you think OutSystems is most useful for?
I cannot really name an industry in which OutSystems cannot be beneficial. Who does not want to make top-notch applic...
How did you decide which OutSystems edition was the best one for you?
We started using OutSystems fairly recently, so we are still on the free version of it. My company is still testing ...
 

Also Known As

uniPaaS
No data available
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

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
Genzyme, TNT, Yahoo, Capgemini, Roche, D&B, Aegon, kpn, AZL, Sky, Arch, Penn State Univeristy, BancABC
Randstad, Warner Brothers, HP, Intel, ING, Banco Popular, Thrivent Financial, Bacardi, Kent State University, Bacardi, FICO, ING, Vodafone, AbbVie, Estafeta, Siemens, Vopak
Find out what your peers are saying about OutSystems, Mendix, Salesforce and others in Mobile Development Platforms. Updated: April 2025.
851,174 professionals have used our research since 2012.