We performed a comparison between Microsoft Power Apps and Pillir based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, OutSystems and others in Rapid Application Development Software."It is stable and reliable."
"It is good for using for small apps and automation on Office stuff."
"It is very easy for us to implement. We have a Microsoft ecosystem, and this solution has many components for integration."
"If you want something that you can use for cellphones, multiple tablets, and things like that, you can use PowerApps for the front end. It gathers all the information, and the information goes somewhere else."
"It's a very workable solution because it's an automated way of making applications. You have a template, you have the application know-how,"
"Of all of the solutions I evaluated, it was the easiest to use and deploy."
"We like that this solution allows us to fully define our test environments, and link them using different code. This means we can do different tests, but with one basic structure, and then export the data and use it in other platforms."
"The UI functionality is the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"I love how they took the MIT Scratch concept and implemented it into the in-app backend. It makes the app creation so much more intuitive and easy to use."
"I believe that this is the only product in the market that truly supports offline capabilities in an SAP environment."
"We'd like to see more integration capabilities in the future."
"The portal and canvas apps need to be improved and brought up to speed."
"The availability of templates needs to be improved. I understand that the ecosystem around it is still developing, but we need more templates. I would like the entire ecosystem around it to improve. I would recommend adding AI components. Even though we can always connect to Azure for AI components, they should slowly start looking at adding some AI components to PowerApps so that out-of-the-box learning can be applied to process flows. Salesforce has the Einstein layer that works along with license platforms. PowerApps should also have something similar."
"We use GoCanvas to make forms. It's easier to make forms in GoCanvas, but Power Apps is cheaper because it is bundled with our Office 365 license. if I want to create a form in Power Apps, I need some knowledge, but GoCanvas is intuitive."
"Microsoft is not cheap. The pricing could be lowered for their customers."
"Integration with databases and other tools needs to be improved."
"The scalability of the solution could improve."
"I have always felt that you need an IT background to use this solution."
"The modernizer element should convert a higher percentage of the ABAP code, moving it from approximately 75%, closer to 100%."
"While we're not in a place of letting LOB analysts build apps, at some point, we may want to give them a bit more freedom - as long as we can limit their ability to harm the ERP data. I would like to see more tools pertaining to this area."
Earn 20 points
Microsoft Power Apps is ranked 1st in Rapid Application Development Software with 77 reviews while Pillir is ranked 41st in Rapid Application Development Software. Microsoft Power Apps is rated 7.8, while Pillir is rated 10.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Power Apps writes "Low-code, low learning curve, and reduces manpower". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pillir writes "Helpful dashboard, supports offline capabilities for SAP, professional support, and a simple pricing model". Microsoft Power Apps is most compared with Mendix, Oracle Application Express (APEX), ServiceNow, Appian and OutSystems, whereas Pillir is most compared with .
See our list of best Rapid Application Development Software vendors and best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software 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.