We performed a comparison between Magic xpa Application Platform and Microsoft .NET Framework based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Infrastructure 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 ability to use the same development environment for both Windows and Android applications. Magic xpa also supports iOS applications."
"The speed of development is the quickest for any tool on the market."
"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."
"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."
"The solution makes the managing and adapting of the software very easy."
"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."
"Ease of use, the richness of the libraries and basically very good development tools."
"When it comes to the user interface, the context is better than other tools because it is easier to use."
"Microsoft .NET Framework continually innovates, particularly in Visual Studio, which focuses on improving languages, debugging, and .NET functionality."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable features are the Domain Controller and the WBFS Manager."
"The .NET Framework simplified operations dealing with the allocation and deallocation of memory spaces and the additional processing resources."
"Proven solution with valuable customization."
"In-built refactoring and .Net profilers are the most valuable features of the solution."
"The user interface could be improved to be more friendly for developers."
"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."
"The configuration of the xpa RIA mobile environment is complex and a discouragement to new developers. Also, Magic's documentation can be less than complete at times which leads to frustration for new developers. (I encourage new Magic developers to join the Magic Users Group)."
"The Android environment is missing a number of functions for file/folder manipulation, sending receiving text messages (SMS) and the menuing options are limited. For now, it is left to the developer to write his/her own Java functions to include in the APK."
"The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy."
"It is missing basic charting tools for bar/pie/series charts. It is left to the developer to acquire and deploy charting tools or the customer to purchase a third-party reporting tool to produce charts."
"Support is very bad."
"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."
"If AI could be incorporated in Microsoft .NET Framework it would be helpful."
"This solution is best used with some training."
"The product’s reliability needs improvement."
"Difficult to scale this product for large organizations."
"I would like to see more pre-built features in the MVC framework because as it is now, it's very open and you have to develop your own controls in order to use it."
"Microsoft could improve .NET Framework by providing more resources to help users understand the solution."
"The .NET open source community could be larger."
"They should try to improve their Blazor WebAssembly."
More Magic xpa Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Magic xpa Application Platform is ranked 15th in Application Infrastructure with 10 reviews while Microsoft .NET Framework is ranked 4th in Application Infrastructure with 47 reviews. Magic xpa Application Platform is rated 8.6, while Microsoft .NET Framework 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 .NET Framework writes "Intuitive, easier to develop, maintain, and migrate from the old framework to newer versions". Magic xpa Application Platform is most compared with OutSystems, Mendix and GeneXus, whereas Microsoft .NET Framework is most compared with IIS, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform, Apache Web Server, Windows Process Activation Services and WebLogic Suite. See our Magic xpa Application Platform vs. Microsoft .NET Framework report.
See our list of best Application Infrastructure vendors.
We monitor all Application Infrastructure 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.