My engagement with the solution was primarily as a private contractor for our banks. We were doing several RPA developments for banks. So they had some processes whereby they wanted to use a low-code approach. They wanted to create workflows out of that. That's what I was focusing on.
Their drag-and-drop functionality is amazing. Their visual layout designers tend to be way better than the ones that I've seen - even compared to something as simple to use as Power Apps.
It's easy to set up the solution.
The product is mostly stable.
One of the things that they could do a little better is the performance speed of the UI refresh. It sometimes seems a little choppy, depending on what sort of machine power we have. I have a moderately powered machine, and I still found that the reload of the UI was not the most accurate, and I would have to reload the same page a couple of times to get the reflection of the right information.
It's frustrating in that if you forget to refresh, you're showing somebody the wrong thing, and your bosses aren't happy with you.
The documentation needs to be more robust.
Their UI reach refresh rates could be perhaps better. There's a lot of heavy focus on the client being able to create, to refresh quickly. I don't know what that mechanism looks like for them.
The integrations that have been created for automated testing, et cetera, should be a big area of improvement for them. If they could think about creating better integrations or opening up the integration space to get more hooks into more automated testing frameworks and platforms, it would be a nice little addition to their whole arsenal.
OutSystems has an opinionated approach to how it will save the data in the back and how it will create application architecture. So they have components, and they have the ability to break things into smaller pieces, however, if I was ever to try and take the system that OutSystems created and try and replicate and take that code base, for example, and put it into a .NET IDE, it doesn't work. Ever. That was sort of a bummer for me.
One of the things that I keep hearing from people is, "We are going to use low-code applications of platforms to create a very basic proof of concept," and that is where their inclusions end. However, to use that proof of concept of complex work, we need to go back to the Javas, and the .NETs, and the C++ of the world. The ability to get that code over and make it work in these different IDEs was not well thought through.
I've used the solution for a year and a half.
Except for the issues around screen refreshes, its stability is okay. It's fine. It's comparable to PowerApps.
I've also used Microsoft PowerApps.
Clients were also using UiPath.
The initial setup was straightforward, however, initially getting my feet wet, and kicking it off, can be difficult. The documentation at that moment in time was lacking. It was a very basic, here's how you do a hello world kind of thing, and everything else that followed those instructions were based on the same simple idea. If they could just start making the documentation a bit more realistic with real-world situations, they'll definitely be helping their clients a lot.
There isn't a lot of maintenance needed. There only needs to be one person maintaining the product.
My advice would be more for OutSystems. They need to make documentation foolproof. They need to make it easy enough for anyone to read and get it up and running. From OutSystems's point of view, they would prefer not to have people struggle for installations, so they should make it really super quick.
I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
