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."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."
"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."
"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."
"The ability to use the same development environment for both Windows and Android applications. Magic xpa also supports iOS applications."
"The best feature of Magic is the development time. The time it takes to develop something is incredibly fast if you compare Magic with, for example, Java."
"Being able to make changes to existing programs to comply with last minute changes in requirements, and/or being able to fix, test, review, and deploy new code in a manner of hours instead of days, definitely gives us a huge advantage over our competitors and this is only possible thanks to Magic’s speed of programming."
"Magic’s Database Gateway allows the logic of the program to be isolated from the underlying database. This provides the flexibility not only to move existing programs to different database environments without the need to change the logic in the program but also allows the programmer access to different databases without the need to know how to "talk" to them."
"The tool offers a lot of support, and there is a lot of knowledge material available, along with a lot of community groups."
"It's easy to create and integrate things."
"User-friendly and straightforward."
"Pre-programmed functions for .NET Framework are widely available."
"The .NET Framework is easier to use because it provides a wide range of libraries."
"In my opinion, the best thing about Microsoft .NET is the fully featured framework. It provides most of the things which a normal developer requires of any application out of the box."
"Firstly, I appreciate the decision to use Microsoft .NET Framework. I find it to be an excellent language, with a history rooted in providing an alternative to Java, albeit with initial challenges. It is gaining popularity and may be voted the most desirable programming language. What I particularly like about .NET is its language efficiency. While C# is the primary language, the platform also supports others, catering to those inclined towards functional programming. Although I started with Shell, I'm still grasping the concept of functional programming. Despite initial reservations about object-oriented programming, I acknowledge its advantages. .NET is a safer option, and despite criticisms, it has evolved over the years. One notable aspect is .NET's transition to an open platform in recent years, distancing itself from being exclusive to Microsoft engineers. I appreciate the versatility of .NET, enabling code production for a wide range of platforms, presenting a strong competition to Java. It allows targeting practically any physical platform, showcasing its flexibility. These qualities contribute to my positive view of .NET, totaling thirteen aspects that I find appealing."
"A great solution for creating program solutions in a framework for Microsoft Windows quickly and easily."
"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)."
"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."
"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."
"Support is very bad."
"The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy."
"Throughout my career, I've encountered difficulties when integrating new technologies with Magic xpa Application Platform. In particular, when attempting to incorporate features from other development languages into earlier versions of the solution called uniPaaS. I struggled to integrate .NET components due to the limited options available. This made the process more challenging and complicated. I find it challenging to create a more user-friendly experience for users who may be comparing the system to other systems they have used outside or within the company on different platforms."
"The user interface could be improved to be more friendly for developers."
"The runtime environment for ASP.NET needs improvement to make it more universal."
"If Microsoft would provide a monthly subscription at a cost that a developer can afford then it would be really helpful."
"There are performance constraints when multiple users are accessing the application and that consumes CPU resources."
"Microsoft .NET Framework has a steep learning curve, which could be improved."
"The solution has difficulty integrating with other products. There are no such difficulties if you have the same platform, hardware, and operating system."
"I would like more web integration."
"Microsoft has its own product called Blazor, but I don't think it's quite as powerful yet as React or Angular. That's an area for improvement."
"I would want the product to be integrated with the different AI tools in the future since it is one of the areas where the product has certain shortcomings."
More Magic xpa Application Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Magic xpa Application Platform is ranked 14th 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.