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
17th
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 March 2025, in the Low-Code Development Platforms category, the mindshare of FlutterFlow is 2.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Mendix is 9.3%, down from 12.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Low-Code Development Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

Luis Gerardo Meneses Hernandez - PeerSpot reviewer
Creates versatile applications seamlessly across platforms
I like the simplicity of making panels with Flutter. It is easy to use when you understand the code, know how to use Docs, and understand the components of Flutter. It allows you to create fragments that look good and work on both mobile and web environments. Additionally, it works for both PC and iOS devices.
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

"It allows you to create fragments that look good and work on both mobile and web environments."
"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."
"What I found most valuable in Mendix is that it's very much suitable for mobile apps such as native Android or IOS supported mobile apps. The multiple features of the platform are very, very attractive and very popular. Mendix has technical features such as microflows and nanoflows. You can also access data models in the platform. These are the features that are very, very strong in Mendix. I got my hands dirty on other low-code platforms, but I have not seen such strong features in them compared to the microflows, nanoflows, and data model access that are in Mendix, including creating and integration. The platform has out-of-the-box adapters or out-of-the-box-connectors that you can integrate with different interface applications such as SAP, Salesforce, Oracle EBS, etc."
"The most valuable features of Mendix are the drag and drop functions, the data entities, domain models, and all the related features."
"We find it intuitive and easy to use."
"Enables us to rapidly create a complex application. We are also able to customize features that stakeholders in the corporation want to see, something that could not be done with other software. Our workflows and processes have evolved and improved. The fast iterations allow us to be nimble, get feedback from users, and do rapid updates."
"The most valuable features are the decorative style, model-driven development, and the fact that Mendix validates flows. Mendix is quick to develop because it's a low-code platform. It's very robust, flexible, open, and scalable. It's for a low-code customer. The tooling is also really good and it has mobile capabilities."
"Mendix code and coding logic are very visual. It looks like a flow chart rather than lines of code. Rapid development is what drew us to Mendix."
"The integrated security saves a lot of time, especially when it comes to setting up user-roles and security. Also, database updates work automatically. There is no need to write queries to update the database, once you make an update."
"The pricing is very clear, with no hidden fees."
 

Cons

"I am trying to see how it can be integrated with the backend. That said, I haven't gotten there yet."
"Scaling depends on project requirements."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in advanced functionality so it could cater to more complex app development needs."
"Feature-wise and in terms of technical aspects, Mendix is excellent, but its pricing is steep."
"There is always a layer of custom code required."
"A constraint of Mendix is that you have to look for the required plugins which takes up development time. There are a limited number of Mendix experts in the market."
"It is expensive."
"My understanding is that, if you are not using the free version, it is very expensive."
"You need experienced programmers and developers to understand this solution."
"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."
"I would like to see more documentation as well as how-to documents."
 

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."
"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."
"Licensing costs are similar to those for all other IT technology, but they vary by region."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Pricing used to be complex, but Mendix has improved that quite a bit."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Low-Code Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
10%
Educational Organization
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Media Company
9%
Computer Software Company
17%
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: March 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.