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
 

Categories and Ranking

FlutterFlow
Ranking in Low-Code Development Platforms
19th
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)
 

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

"The most valuable features of FlutterFlow are the integrations and workflows."
"I like the simplicity of making panels with Flutter."
"It allows you to create fragments that look good and work on both mobile and web environments."
"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 solution is stable."
"There are free online learning and certifications if a user would like to learn more and better understand the solution."
"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."
"You can scale the solution."
"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."
"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."
"I think that the workflow and automation features are quite good."
"Mendix has made a great deal of effort to provide its developers a healthy, modern environment for developing. First of all, it adopts Agile methodology by creating a SCRUM-based app where you can handle your user stories. Next comes version control, which really allows multiple team members to collaborate quite easily. And last but not least, Mendix modeler, which is your IDE for developing Mendix apps."
 

Cons

"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."
"Scaling depends on project requirements."
"I am trying to see how it can be integrated with the backend. That said, I haven't gotten there yet."
"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 thing I would like to improve is the support system offered by Mendix. It can sometimes take a while to get the help I need when I'm using Mendix."
"It could use a more comprehensive widget creation studio in the IDE."
"Overall, integration with the enterprise ecosystem needs improvement."
"We are all moving away from a monolithic product model to microservices. We are building an F2DUI application to decouple the front and back end. Mendix provides an integrated approach for both."
"We'd like to be able to write in C Sharp to develop code for Mendix."
"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."
 

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."
"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."
"Pricing used to be complex, but Mendix has improved that quite a bit."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is a bit expensive compared to others"
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Low-Code Development Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Educational Organization
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?
We are all moving away from a monolithic product model to microservices. We are building an F2DUI application to decouple the front and back end. Mendix provides an integrated approach for both. Id...
 

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: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.