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

Microsoft Power Apps vs Pillir comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 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

Microsoft Power Apps
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
1st
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
1st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
94
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Pillir
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
46th
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
39th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.3
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Rapid Application Development Software category, the mindshare of Microsoft Power Apps is 14.1%, down from 22.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pillir is 0.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Rapid Application Development Software
 

Featured Reviews

Guhan Eshwar - PeerSpot reviewer
Building tools with user-friendly interfaces abut needs integration improvements
An integration of Copilot options within Microsoft Power Apps would be useful. In UiPath apps, there is an autopilot function that uses a generative AI model, which creates layouts and connects data services automatically with a prompt. Such integration would be beneficial to build basic frameworks that can be enhanced. This would assist business process users who lack coding knowledge.
it_user130401 - PeerSpot reviewer
Helpful dashboard, supports offline capabilities for SAP, professional support, and a simple pricing model
I believe that this is the only product in the market that truly supports offline capabilities in an SAP environment. We have people going through all of their shifts without connectivity, yet it automatically later synchronizes well with SAP, without creating extra documents or anything like that. The ability to take ABAP code and automatically convert it to a mobile app and then adjust it to our needs is something that I haven't seen in any other low-code solution on the market, and it has been life-changing for us. I love how easy it is to manage the design of the process using drag and drop. I know they are working to make the developer experience even better, and I'm very excited about it. The modernizer element that converts existing ABAP business logic to the cloud-native mobile-friendly solution is a very powerful tool that I haven't seen in the market.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I can have a SharePoint list and connect with users through PowerApps to present the information."
"The product has good usability, in terms of low-code applications."
"The solution works great and is stable."
"The most valuable feature is that PowerApps can be used by most business users. It is not only for programmers."
"It uses a lot of AI, which is helpful, especially during the setup process."
"It is easy to design automation processes."
"It is easy to use."
"The speed of the solution is valuable."
"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."
 

Cons

"This tool doesn't have an internal database. It only relies on the data layer of Microsoft Cloud."
"The fact that we couldn't share that with our other organization or outside of the organization, consisting of our colleagues in the joint ventures, was a weakness of the solution."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in error handling and debugging."
"The scalability of the solution could improve."
"We'd like more features and less to no coding."
"Its user interface can be better. It is good, but it can be a bit clunky."
"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."
"The modernizer element should convert a higher percentage of the ABAP code, moving it from approximately 75%, closer to 100%."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is too expensive and the licensing system is complicated. There are many pages of instruction on how to do the calculations for the price."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten."
"The price for the license could be more cost-effective."
"The pricing is complicated to understand."
"There are areas of Microsoft PowerApps that can be improved. For example, the license policies are expensive to purchases the premium connectors. If a company would like to use the premium features, they have to pay a lot of money. The Microsoft PowerApps portal could be easier to use when there are a lot of external users because if a company has 1,000 external users, it is too expensive to use the Microsoft PowerApps portal."
"If you start to use any premium connectors that are not stored in a SharePoint list or on an Excel workbook, then it costs $4 per user per month. If you want unlimited, it's about $16 per month for unlimited apps, and unlimited connectors."
"If we compare Microsoft Power Apps with any on-prem or other Azure solutions, I feel it can be made cheaper."
"There are two licensing costs, one is pay-as-you-go, or you can develop it for one year."
"It is straightforward consumption based on the number of end-users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How would you choose between Microsoft PowerApps and Salesforce Platform?
I think it depends on your use case. If your organization uses Microsoft Enterprise products, PowerApps will work better in your environment. Similarly, if you have a Salesforce integration in pla...
Would you choose ServiceNow over Microsoft PowerApps?
Hi Netanya, I will choose ServiceNow because ServiceNow is a very good tool compared to Microsoft PowerApp. Because ServiceNow has a very strong module (Performance Analysis) reporting which will ...
Would you choose Microsoft Azure App Service or PowerApps?
Microsoft Azure App Service is helpful if you need to set up temporary servers for customers to run their programs in locations that other cloud providers do not cater to. When servers are closer t...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

PowerApps, MS PowerApps
appsFreedom
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransAlta, Rackspace, Telstra
Dole packaed food, Par Pacific, Brown Forman (Jack Daniels and other brands), Mobile Mini, Nabors
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Power Apps vs. Pillir and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.