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

FlutterFlow vs Mendix comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

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

FlutterFlow
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
18th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Mendix
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
6th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
51
Ranking in other categories
Mobile Development Platforms (2nd), Rapid Application Development Software (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Low-Code Development Platforms category, the mindshare of FlutterFlow is 2.1%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mendix is 9.7%, down from 12.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Low-Code Development Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Bibhu Sahu - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies integrations, accelerates development timelines, and offers a good MVP
We integrate FlutterFlow into our app development process by first developing the code using the enterprise ID. Once the code is ready, we preview it and then download it. We have built a CI process where the code, once pushed to the gate, is processed by CI actions to generate the appropriate output, whether it is an IPA or APK file. While FlutterFlow currently focuses on website development, we write the code in a way that allows us to adapt it for mobile apps as well. We maintain a unified codebase for all three platforms, ensuring consistency and efficiency in our development workflow. FlutterFlow accelerated my development timeline on a project where I needed a simple website with basic navigation and form submissions. While it lacks advanced design pattern options and some features are still maturing, it simplifies integration and speeds up development. FlutterFlow's UI design capabilities have significantly impacted my app development by allowing me to communicate marketing concepts more effectively through visual flow. Every feature in FlutterFlow, from screen design to integrations, has been valuable for my development efforts. However, having better support for multiple design patterns and ensuring compatibility with custom changes would greatly improve the development experience. Overall, I would rate FlutterFlow as an eight out of ten.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like the simplicity of making panels with Flutter."
"FlutterFlow offers a lot, but one feature that really helps me is the debugging features that allow me to test everything on the spot. This is really helpful."
"The most valuable features of FlutterFlow are the integrations and workflows."
"It allows you to create fragments that look good and work on both mobile and web environments."
"Mendix provides the ability to create solutions that fill gaps that I would otherwise be unable to address with standard software."
"You can scale the solution."
"We also use Mendix Enterprise Integration for complex business logic. It's a low-code platform, so we run Mendix in the Mendix Cloud."
"I think that the workflow and automation features are quite good."
"The user experience is great."
"You can scale the solution."
"The most valuable features are the integration and UI customization."
"It is stable."
 

Cons

"There is room for improvement in advanced functionality so it could cater to more complex app development needs."
"I am trying to see how it can be integrated with the backend. That said, I haven't gotten there yet."
"The UI components could be more standardized. Sometimes, for certain properties, I have to search more than I do with other platforms. With other platforms, once you know one, you know all. But with FlutterFlow, sometimes you have to look around for what you need."
"Scaling depends on project requirements."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see more documentation as well as how-to documents."
"It could use a more comprehensive widget creation studio in the IDE."
"There's no direct tech support."
"I would also like to see automatic adjustment to the Java Heap, whenever an application load becomes too much for the application. It could also use hot database replication."
"The code refactoring tools could be better, especially for applications running for years. It's not bad, but it could be smoother. Also, writing new widgets can be trickier than it should be for some people, but not if you're familiar with Mendix."
"Mendix needs to think about itself offering machine learning and artificial intelligence."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the licensing costs a three out of ten, with ten being expensive and one being cheap. Currently, I use the free version."
"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."
"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."
"Pricing used to be complex, but Mendix has improved that quite a bit."
"The solution is a bit expensive compared to others"
"There is a license required to use Mendix. The solution's price is high, but it is best suited for enterprise companies that have the budget. It is not for small or medium-sized businesses."
"Licensing costs are similar to those for all other IT technology, but they vary by region."
"Its cost is higher than competitors. The cost mostly includes licensing. It is charged per user. The cost model could be better. When you have a big company, what does per user mean? If I have a company where I have 40,000 people who will go to access it but only 200 do, how do you license it and who do you pay for? If they hit it once, do you pay for it? The licensing is complex for a big company. It is easy for us to buy all we can eat, get an enterprise license agreement, and call it good."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Low-Code Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Educational Organization
9%
Media Company
9%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
University
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about FlutterFlow?
FlutterFlow offers a lot, but one feature that really helps me is the debugging features that allow me to test everything on the spot. This is really helpful.
What needs improvement with FlutterFlow?
Right now, I think it's a good tool. It's easy to understand when you know Dart. It helps create applications, and I am trying to see how it can be integrated with the backend. That said, I haven't...
What is your primary use case for FlutterFlow?
Currently, I am using Flutter to make a dashboard.
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 the Mendix Cloud.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Mendix?
I would rate the pricing a six out of ten. The solution is a bit expensive compared to others, but in the long term, it is worth it. For instance, Microsoft Power Apps don't demand a huge investmen...
What needs improvement with Mendix?
All software applications have their hiccups, including the Mendix Studio Pro developers program. Though still improving, there is no specific example of what really needs to be improved. Some lear...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Genzyme, TNT, Yahoo, Capgemini, Roche, D&B, Aegon, kpn, AZL, Sky, Arch, Penn State Univeristy, BancABC
Find out what your peers are saying about FlutterFlow vs. Mendix and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
838,713 professionals have used our research since 2012.