We performed a comparison between IBM MobileFirst and Xamarin Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about OutSystems, Mendix, Salesforce and others in Mobile Development Platforms."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."
"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."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"It has significantly reduced the skill barrier for development and testers."
"We very much like the XAML design techniques, multiple layout and pages, MVVMCross support, and portability across different platforms."
"Test Cloud, Calabash, SpecFlow, and Xamarin.UITest are the features which can’t be ignored because just writing code doesn’t mean your app will run flawlessly. You need to test your app on each possible device and configuration, which you can do easily."
"Xamarin Platform enables you to use a single code language. This is beneficial for Android, iOS, and Windows platforms, so they can be developed over application or built over application."
"Xamarin.Forms reduced the effort and time to build and market our solution, market our features, and get our solution into production."
"Recently, Xamarin has added a lot of features such as Effects, Behaviors, Triggers, etc. This has made the UI user-friendly, lively, and attractive."
"The solution is easy to understand and has banking integrated. The shorter development time, the bugging and as well as availability of a lot of documentation on the web. Also the native integration is easy."
"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."
"It would be better if they offered more certifications. They offer a number of certifications for Azure but none for Xamarin. This is something that could be provided for developers to show off their competency. Technical support could be better."
"From time to time, it is a bit harder to code some specific scenarios compared to the native approach."
"It is common to find a problem that you would need to develop from the start since there are no third-party components to reuse."
"We need to think about partnering with IBM because there is a need for a big data partner; someone who has machine learning and can help us connect the app to big data."
"The solution struggles a little bit with binding libraries."
"There is limited support for UX widgets."
"The file size is a bit big, so you have to make certain layers."
"They need to take a step towards independence from the UI platform. It takes a lot of time to adapt the native controls."
Earn 20 points
IBM MobileFirst is ranked 14th in Mobile Development Platforms while Xamarin Platform is ranked 4th in Mobile Development Platforms with 39 reviews. IBM MobileFirst is rated 8.4, while Xamarin Platform is rated 8.2. 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 Xamarin Platform writes "It's about to be retired and replaced with an inferior product, but offers excellent cross-platform development capabilities". IBM MobileFirst is most compared with IBM MaaS360, Ionic, Microsoft Azure App Service and SAP Mobile Platform, whereas Xamarin Platform is most compared with Ionic, Appium, Apple Xcode, OutSystems and Mendix.
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.