What needs improvement in DexGuard is its maturity level in terms of Flutter support. DexGuard doesn't cover every aspect of SDK protection, particularly for Flutter-based applications. The product just started supporting Flutter-based applications, so it's not yet on a mature level. Flutter is a platform widely used for mobile application development, and DexGuard still needs many improvements in supporting Flutter for obfuscation purposes.
Compared to other products, onboarding DexGuard can be more challenging because it lacks evaluation. The DexGuard team gives a very technical demonstration. Still, there's no evaluation for this product, which means people have to judge it based on the demonstration only, which can be challenging.
If you compare DexGuard with Alluvial or New Relic APM based on technical aspects, there's no problem with DexGuard because it's pretty stable. I've not heard anyone saying that it's a low-end product or that it doesn't meet requirements. However, other products can sometimes be a bit more economical when compared with DexGuard because the DexGuard team still has some low-hanging scenarios that need to be taken care of.
As DexGuard is a sophisticated product, for example, it can give thirteen layers of obfuscation and a very high level of code hardening. It can catch particular issues and run time through ThreatCast. Hence, it has features that other products don't have, so you might have to pay a small premium based on specific scenarios, which makes other products more economical than DexGuard. This could be another area for improvement.
