We performed a comparison between Adobe Flash and ASP.NET based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two .NET Development Services solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."With the alliance with Microsoft, the product is perfectly integrated."
"Without Adobe Flash player, I wouldn't be able to do my day-to-day functions."
"The UI is really good."
"Adobe Flash is simple and easy-to-use software. It is very familiar and compatible with other Adobe software, making it easier to use."
"I am impressed with the tool’s documentation."
"This framework is very easy to use and tweak for our business needs."
"The solution is useful for seeing what old technology was before the new technology we use today, such as .NET."
"The developer support for ASP.NET is a big positive. It's actually very good, and since there are so many people who use ASP.NET, it's easy to get responses to questions about ASP.NET in the broader community."
"The most valuable feature is that it's easy to use."
"The solution is easy to integrate and understand. It has a very good user interface and a lot of prebuilt tools, which require a lot less coding if we compare it to other solutions."
"It is seamless compared to Java or any other technology stack."
"The solution has good scalability."
"The solution's framework supports storing all client-side and server-side code in one place."
"It would be ideal if there was more research on the product available."
"At times it can be slow, but other than that it is a great and helpful product."
"Adobe can focus on the gaming side mode."
"It would be nice to have more integration and faster integration."
"It would be nice to see Adobe Flash as a separate application instead of embedding it with other apps. I want the product to be a simple app. The product’s scalability is also one of its weak points."
"The technology to integrate with cloud information could be improved."
"Performance is an area that can always be improved."
"It should be open source or deployable to any operating system so that the dependency can be removed."
"There used to be IAF, which you could spin on a Windows machine. However, that sort of setup does not exist for Linux machines. Because customers still prefer a Windows underlying infrastructure, it can get expensive."
"It would be beneficial if Microsoft provided more support for certain technologies, such as Blazor, in the form of basic components. As it stands, some reliance on third-party tools may be necessary. Having more support from Microsoft for these technologies would make it easier for users to build and maintain applications. For example, the grids, date pickers, and dropdown lists would be components to add."
"ASP.NET is not the best solution for all companies looking to implement a solution like it."
"The con is that every year they are launching a new technology, and for a company like us, we get confused which version should be used."
"There should be consistent customization related to security, features, and developers, making the solution more understandable and adaptable."
Adobe Flash is ranked 4th in .NET Development Services with 5 reviews while ASP.NET is ranked 3rd in .NET Development Services with 30 reviews. Adobe Flash is rated 9.0, while ASP.NET is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Adobe Flash writes "Easy to set up with good functionality and adaptability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ASP.NET writes "Beneficial thread management, and asynchronous processing, and template-driven setup". Adobe Flash is most compared with Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe AIR, whereas ASP.NET is most compared with SharePoint Designer and Microsoft Silverlight. See our ASP.NET vs. Adobe Flash report.
See our list of best .NET Development Services vendors.
We monitor all .NET Development Services 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.