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

IBM MobileFirst vs Temenos Quantum comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

IBM MobileFirst
Ranking in Mobile App Platforms
7th
Ranking in Mobile Development Platforms
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Temenos Quantum
Ranking in Mobile App Platforms
3rd
Ranking in Mobile Development Platforms
9th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
Rapid Application Development Software (19th), Low-Code Development Platforms (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Mobile App Platforms category, the mindshare of IBM MobileFirst is 2.0%, down from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Temenos Quantum is 2.9%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Mobile App Platforms
 

Featured Reviews

MT
Streamlines development of hybrid applications, and has ability to integrate device-native code
It was a cakewalk for us to develop mobile apps for three different platforms using IBM MobileFirst. Since it was a consumer application built for large-scale events, it was very crucial for us to manage application compatibility with all sort of devices. With MobielFirst, we could actually achieve this with very little trouble. With help of this product, we have been able to develop mobile applications without having complete knowledge of each mobile OS's native programming. App development, delivery, and code management have been very efficient using this product.
Zain Omer - PeerSpot reviewer
Though a secure tool for building applications, there is a need to improve its stability
There is a lot of room for improvement in Temenos Quantum. Temenos Quantum is not quite stable yet. Improvements can be made to make Temenos Quantum stable. Improvements are needed in the solution, considering how my company needs to raise a lot of tickets with the technical support team of Temenos for some basic issues every time. There are some features in Temenos Quantum that I want to be stabilized by Temenos, just like in Android Studio and Xcode. Building an application using Temenos Quantum is not difficult, but my company needs to seek some support for the solution all the time.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"IBM MobileFirst has one of the most feature-rich admin panels."
"I like Its capability for developing hybrid applications, with an ability to integrate device-native code as well"
"With help of this product, we have been able to develop mobile applications without having complete knowledge of each mobile OS's native programming technology. App development, delivery, and code management have been very efficient using this product."
"The most valuable features of Temenos Quantum are user-friendliness and customizability."
"The best thing about Temenos Quantum is how it smoothly connects with Temenos Fabric. This simplifies our quantum application by handling identity, authentication, and security tasks seamlessly, saving us from extra coding."
"The visualizer and API manager are super useful. It's easy to create applications for the agent. Automations and other complex tasks can be hard, but it's mostly straightforward. You can create forms and populate tables."
"It is a single platform that can cater to mobile and web development requirements, making it convenient for businesses looking to transition into the digital space."
"With the new VM releases, it is a faster product with more abilities that benefit the user."
"You can do rapid development across multiple platforms.​"
"The main benefit lies in its exceptional speed of implementation."
"Comparing other solutions with Temenos Quantum, the later is less mature and presents several issues. Implementing Temenos Quantum has been challenging, resembling a nightmare compared to the smoother experience with the other."
 

Cons

"There are issues with push notifications, especially for Windows mobile apps. JSONStore also crashes abruptly at times."
"I would like to see improved support for native device functions."
"The technology of the solution needs an update. It is deficient in terms of connectivity."
"We would like to have widgets for graphs and analytics, as well as the integration of machine learning."
"Temenos Quantum needs to improve its usability. It lacks information on the network. We have to contact the support when we are stuck with something."
"Using the API manager can be complicated when you're dealing with multiple teams, projects, and APIs. Quantum doesn't have user-based access, so I can't restrict parts of the project to specific users."
"Temenos Quantum is not quite stable yet."
"It would be highly beneficial if future iterations of Temenos could incorporate support for QR-based payment methods, as it would enhance the platform's capabilities and align it more closely with modern payment trends"
"There is definitely room for improvement, especially in the areas of AI, AR, and DR for mobile and web applications"
"One area where Temenos Quantum could improve is in the flexibility of widgets and additional libraries."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cost depends upon various factors. Size of the overall application and product usage matter a lot. For an enterprise-grade application, this certainly comes out as an economical solution. However, for small-scale applications, it can turn out to be on the higher side."
"It is expensive solution."
"Temenos Quantum is an expensive tool. Taking into consideration my company's use of Temenos Quantum for a bank, the costs attached to the solution ranged from 3,00,000 to 5,00,000 USD for building one application for the bank."
"​The price is too high. The annual cost for the Kony license is very high. Every year you have to renew it in order to maintain it​"
"The product is expensive. First, they must purchase the product, and then pay an annual renewal fee. The renewal fee depends on the product details and the license term’s length. Clients can buy licenses for five or ten years and pay for them upfront, or they can set up a yearly renewal cycle."
"This is an expensive solution, and it is the biggest challenge that we face when we present this platform to customers."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Mobile App Platforms solutions are best for your needs.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
19%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
39%
Computer Software Company
16%
Government
6%
Real Estate/Law Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Temenos Quantum?
Comparing other solutions with Temenos Quantum, the later is less mature and presents several issues. Implementing Temenos Quantum has been challenging, resembling a nightmare compared to the smoot...
What needs improvement with Temenos Quantum?
The UI lacks flexibility, especially regarding customizations. There are numerous issues at the fabric end, and working with the visualizer is extremely challenging. Basic development tasks require...
 

Also Known As

MobileFirst, Worklight
KonyOne, Kony, Kony Quantum
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

UniCredit Business Integrated Solutions, Gruppo Unipol, Raymond James Financial, Toshiba GCS, CST, ABK-Systeme GmbH, BNP Paribas
Partners FCU, Banco Bolivariano, PSECU, CFG Bank, Commerce Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM MobileFirst vs. Temenos Quantum and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.