We performed a comparison between IBM MobileFirst and Ionic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OutSystems, Mendix, Salesforce and others in Mobile Development Platforms."I like Its capability for developing hybrid applications, with an ability to integrate device-native code as well"
"IBM MobileFirst has one of the most feature-rich admin panels."
"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 solution is secure, reliable, and packed with features so we can easily implement apps even in the most complex situations."
"Being able to have one set of code is valuable. I don't have to recode for different platforms. I don't have to recode for Xcode, Angular, or Android. So, the biggest feature for me is that it's a hybrid system, and I can have one set of code, and then the tool sets that are in there convert my code for Xcode or Play Store. It makes work a lot easier."
"The most valuable feature of Ionic is the ease of use and the simple connection of the applications. Additionally, the documentation is good in the Ionic application, and beginners can easily learn and download their own application using Ionic. Everyone can easily switch out, their domain, from native applications to hybrid applications."
"It's very flexible for UI development."
"Ionic's best feature is that it's not necessary to write your own custom codes as all the hybrid is provided by Angular."
"What I like the most about Ionic is live reloading, which enables us to develop new features without having to build the application again and re-check the functionality."
"Ionic is easy to upgrade and is helpful for design purposes. It also is quite common and easy to use. It is a very reliable application. It's easy to write on and print. The UI is easy to use as well. My organization chose to go with Ionic because we can access both Android and iOS applications."
"The most valuable feature is the one code deployed to all solutions, which means you do not need to have multiple teams."
"I would like to see improved support for native device functions."
"There are issues with push notifications, especially for Windows mobile apps. JSONStore also crashes abruptly at times."
"In a future release, we would like to have a little more support for the desktop environment. Currently it is still focused on mobile devices."
"It would be good if the mobile version uses something other than JavaScript and HTML."
"The documentation could be improved."
"Ionic could improve in the Native mode because while we do testing it is difficult to find the root cause of problems. It could be more user-friendly."
"Ionic's UI component doesn't always look like the native mobile app."
"Ionic would be improved with dynamic design features."
"There is a lack of a community environment."
"Documentation for migrations and compatibility is insufficient."
Earn 20 points
IBM MobileFirst is ranked 14th in Mobile Development Platforms while Ionic is ranked 5th in Mobile Development Platforms with 14 reviews. IBM MobileFirst is rated 8.4, while Ionic is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM MobileFirst writes "It provides access management for the enterprise user as well as for the consumer". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Ionic writes "Great user acceptance and reliability, multiple teams not required, with prompt customer service". IBM MobileFirst is most compared with IBM MaaS360, Microsoft Azure App Service and SAP Mobile Platform, whereas Ionic is most compared with Xamarin Platform, OutSystems, Appium, Mendix and GeneXus.
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.