We performed a comparison between Ionic and Xamarin Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Mobile Development Platforms solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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 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."
"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 solution is secure, reliable, and packed with features so we can easily implement apps even in the most complex situations."
"Ionic's best feature is that it's not necessary to write your own custom codes as all the hybrid is provided by Angular."
"The most valuable feature is the one code deployed to all solutions, which means you do not need to have multiple teams."
"The solution can support many languages."
"The main value of this solution for our business, is that it is a hybrid product that allows us to write code that is compatible with IOS, Android, and web documents."
"We were able to optimize the service organization for one of our clients."
"The most valuable feature of the Xamarin Platform is the deployment."
"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."
"Plugins like MvvmCross make a developer’s life easy."
"You can just write one XM channel core and it'll be used for both iOS and Android."
"A single line of code works with android and iOS."
"Cross-platform development saves time and provides consistencies."
"It would be good if the mobile version uses something other than JavaScript and HTML."
"Ionic is a cross-platform framework, so when we compare Ionic with native Android and iOS, we can see the drawbacks. For example, if you need to work on very high-level aspects of an application such as animation, even if everything else is not putting load on the app, you will still see high load from the server side."
"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."
"There is a lack of a community environment."
"The documentation could be improved."
"Documentation for migrations and compatibility is insufficient."
"They started writing Capacitor to get rid of PhoneGap and Cordova, but they haven't yet got all the libraries and all the functionalities. They want you to start using Capacitor, but they don't have all the libraries there. They're developing them as they go. So, currently, you have to mix and match the three. When it comes to mobile applications, I would only like to use Capacitor. I don't want to jump between Cordova and Capacitor or have both of them. That's the main thing for me, but they have been working on it."
"Ionic's UI component doesn't always look like the native mobile app."
"I feel that the Android AppCompat library creates a lot of issues. A lot of development time is often wasted solving these issues."
"For beginners, the entire setup can be overwhelming because it involves setting up development environments for iOS, Android, and Windows at the same time if you want to target all three."
"Xamarin Platform can improve if there was a virtual test environment so we did not have to have a Mac system for the iOS testing. At this time You must have a Mac to deploy or generate IBA profiles."
"The android application compilation time needs to be reduced."
"There is limited support for UX widgets."
"The debugging functionality could be improved in Xamarin Platform because sometimes it takes very long to move through the stages of setting up the application build to the final deployment on a mobile app that resides in a physical device."
"We'd like to have some chat support functionality."
"Regarding improvements, there are still some limitations with Xamarin, particularly regarding access to core functionality in Android and iOS."
Ionic is ranked 5th in Mobile Development Platforms with 14 reviews while Xamarin Platform is ranked 4th in Mobile Development Platforms with 39 reviews. Ionic is rated 8.6, while Xamarin Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Ionic writes "Great user acceptance and reliability, multiple teams not required, with prompt customer service". 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". Ionic is most compared with Appium, OutSystems, Appzillon Digital Platform, Mendix and Microsoft Azure App Service, whereas Xamarin Platform is most compared with Appium, Apple Xcode, OutSystems, Mendix and Tricentis Tosca. See our Ionic vs. Xamarin Platform report.
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.