We performed a comparison between FlutterFlow and Mendix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Low-Code Development Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of FlutterFlow are the integrations and workflows."
"FlutterFlow offers a lot, but one feature that really helps me is the debugging features that allow me to test everything on the spot. This is really helpful."
"You can scale the solution."
"The pricing is very clear, with no hidden fees."
"It is a development platform which assists in accelerating your developmental lifecycle. This is one of its most valuable features. This solution also offers a good set of components that are readily available."
"It is low code, where the developers can still develop in Java. That to us is very appealing."
"Mendix has made a great deal of effort to provide its developers a healthy, modern environment for developing. First of all, it adopts Agile methodology by creating a SCRUM-based app where you can handle your user stories. Next comes version control, which really allows multiple team members to collaborate quite easily. And last but not least, Mendix modeler, which is your IDE for developing Mendix apps."
"You can scale the solution."
"Mendix code and coding logic are very visual. It looks like a flow chart rather than lines of code. Rapid development is what drew us to Mendix."
"It is a brilliant solution."
"There is room for improvement in advanced functionality so it could cater to more complex app development needs."
"The UI components could be more standardized. Sometimes, for certain properties, I have to search more than I do with other platforms. With other platforms, once you know one, you know all. But with FlutterFlow, sometimes you have to look around for what you need."
"There should be more integration with engineering applications and tighter integration for user authentication, such as single sign-on, etc. They have some of that. It just could be stronger."
"A constraint of Mendix is that you have to look for the required plugins which takes up development time. There are a limited number of Mendix experts in the market."
"An improvement I would like to see is the ability to version manage independent modules. Their version management for software repositories must be better. It's good and you can do it, but it needs work."
"Mendix is great for internal applications but not so great for a public-facing interface. It lacks a proper directory structure for public use. The URL will not change from page to page unless a deep link is created for each page. That makes it difficult to bookmark pages in the browser to view later on."
"Mendix needs to think about itself offering machine learning and artificial intelligence."
"There's no direct tech support."
"Overall, integration with the enterprise ecosystem needs improvement."
"There are not enough developers who are using Mendix. The knowledge base available online and in the market is not as rich as other competitors."
FlutterFlow is ranked 17th in Low-Code Development Platforms with 2 reviews while Mendix is ranked 4th in Low-Code Development Platforms with 48 reviews. FlutterFlow is rated 8.6, while Mendix is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of FlutterFlow writes "Simplifies integrations, accelerates development timelines, and offers a good MVP". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Mendix writes "Low-code, helpful support, and great native mobile capability". FlutterFlow is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, whereas Mendix is most compared with Microsoft Power Apps, OutSystems, Appian, Oracle Application Express (APEX) and ServiceNow. See our FlutterFlow vs. Mendix report.
See our list of best Low-Code Development Platforms vendors.
We monitor all Low-Code 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.