We performed a comparison between Magic xpa Application Platform and Microsoft Azure App Service based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Mobile Development Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Magic’s unique approach to development ensures that the programmer stays focused on the objective of the program (i.e. display all customers in California), instead of the repetitive tasks that surround it (i.e. connect to database, open customers table, create the query to retrieve records within the specified criteria, fetch the result of the query, connect it to a data grid, etc.)."
"The best feature of Magic is the development time. The time it takes to develop something is incredibly fast if you compare Magic with, for example, Java."
"Magic is rapid, it's a tool which we use to develop, change and maintain our programs. xpa has a lot more features onboard and it gives us the opportunity to do such things so that we can easily adapt and maintain our programs. It gives certain benefits to stay with our customers and the market."
"What I found most valuable in the Magic xpa Application Platform is that it has a client-server and web browser technology that's perfect for company users."
"Typically an experienced Magic developer can do the work of two to three experienced C#/.NET developers. Customers are amazed at how quickly most new features can be added and bug fixes implemented. I have worked for four employers - including myself - using Magic, and in most instances, bug fixes are addressed and deployed in under six hours."
"Without the need to compile code, the time spent in the development cycle is greatly reduced, allowing the programmer to test modifications to a program immediately after they have been saved."
"The Magic xpa Application Platform is very suitable for production since it is easy to update. The program is simple to upgrade and deploy. The solution is convenient in production. You need to adjust the data, then adjust the program which is not difficult."
"The speed of development is the quickest for any tool on the market."
"The program is stable and we've had no technical issues so far."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure App Service are its vertical and horizontal scaling, along with its ability to throw a docker image."
"I've used Microsoft Azure App Service quite a lot, and what I like best about it is that it's a serverless HAM, which is a feature that can run a function, a single function, but faster and more frequently without needing any other assistance. This has been what I found most valuable in Microsoft Azure App Service, the serverless option that's very easy to utilize, and you only need a minimal setup to use this and to enjoy the functionalities required, so the solution gives me a lot of comfort whenever I'm using it."
"The most valuable feature is that it's an ideal solution when it comes to lifting and shifting monolithic applications from on-premises to Azure Cloud. It allows for a quick shift into the cloud without having to analyze and design very specific infrastructure and services for monolithic applications hosted primarily on-premises. Let's say that the team does not want to really redesign monoliths in a microservices-based application and that they want to make a quick move towards adopting the cloud tech stack. Then, Microsoft Azure App Service is probably the best option."
"What I found most valuable in Microsoft Azure App Service is that it's a PaaS. I also like that it supports Docker and multiple frameworks so that you can work on Java, Ruby on Rails, PHP, and Python."
"The solution is very simple to set up."
"The most beneficial aspect of Microsoft Azure App Service is its automated DevOps deployment, which includes configurations that ensure secure connections to key vault and database resources."
"The solution overall is very good."
"Support is very bad."
"The user interface could be improved to be more friendly for developers."
"There is room for improvement in Magic's marketing and licensing. I would like to see more integration of web functionality."
"Throughout my career, I've encountered difficulties when integrating new technologies with Magic xpa Application Platform. In particular, when attempting to incorporate features from other development languages into earlier versions of the solution called uniPaaS. I struggled to integrate .NET components due to the limited options available. This made the process more challenging and complicated. I find it challenging to create a more user-friendly experience for users who may be comparing the system to other systems they have used outside or within the company on different platforms."
"Magic has a tradition, when it adds new technologies/features to the Magic development tool, to provide either no documentation or documentation that does not provide an organized approach for bringing this new technology/feature to experienced Magic programmers."
"When you have several tasks, you open a screen in a task in developing mode, and you don't see the parent screens. Debugging lacks the effects to solve problems. You have to do it first in a kind of studio. Then you have to be sure that you can do it in Magic because there is almost nothing to debug it. It's practically impossible to debug. You have to be sure before you put your snippets."
"In the next version of the Magic xpa Application Platform, I want tables or small programs where I can directly add expressions. I can do it on SQL, but it would make life much easier if that specification were added to the platform."
"They want to be one toolbox for everything, but primarily, we are using xpa to develop desktop applications, and in that area they're lacking functionalities, flexibility, and modern stuff."
"Microsoft Azure App Service could improve by having better integration and connectivity with other platforms. The solution has good integration with other large companies' solutions but there are smaller service platforms companies where there could be integrated better."
"I want more transparency in billing. It would be better if we could understand and control the billing to customize it. Also, Microsoft should provide more guidance about the widgets and subsets of various products. The Microsoft portfolio is so huge that it's sometimes difficult to choose the correct option. There's always a chance we are paying more than necessary."
"The solution is quite expensive. If you need more features, you need to pay for them."
"Sometimes customer service and support can be challenging."
"The solution needs better integration capabilities on the network side."
"The pricing is average. It could be lower."
"There are no issues with the solution."
"The logging and monitoring could improve in Microsoft Azure App Service."
More Magic xpa Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Magic xpa Application Platform is ranked 11th in Mobile Development Platforms with 10 reviews while Microsoft Azure App Service is ranked 6th in Mobile Development Platforms with 38 reviews. Magic xpa Application Platform is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure App Service is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Magic xpa Application Platform writes "Fast development and user-oriented functionalities, but it needs better .NET integration and a completely different pricing structure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure App Service writes "A solution with great server management and helps improve performance". Magic xpa Application Platform is most compared with Microsoft .NET Framework, OutSystems, Mendix and GeneXus, whereas Microsoft Azure App Service is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, Oracle Application Express (APEX), ServiceNow, Pega BPM and Appian. See our Magic xpa Application Platform vs. Microsoft Azure App Service report.
See our list of best Mobile Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Mobile Development Platforms reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.