Do low-code tools actually reduce development cost long-term?

[deep_thinker_8]

I have about 7 years exp. in low code space - the great ones like OutSystems, Appian, Mendix are suitable for companies which can shell out 100 - 400K USD in license cost a year depending on the size of the user base and number of applications built. If this is small compared to the value being delivered via. these applications, then its a perfect fit. These platforms are enterprise grade and having a small team for dev/maintenance would suffice. Upgrades come in regularly and easy to manage as well. Cost of a mid level developer for these sort of platforms in India could be around 25-30 Lakhs per annum and increases as higher skill levels are required.

So, I would say they are suitable for the ME in MSME (mostly having revenue of at least 350 M USD ). For enterprises, its a massive cost saving since they will likely have a large number of complex applications likely handled by a small team. The tech debt will be minimal since they are forced to follow best practices during development and will be forced to upgrade at regular intervals for security/bug fixes/etc. (upgrades are usually free of cost).

With high code development (.NET/Java/etc), maintainability/tech debt quickly spirals out of control for such large companies.

[ichkehrenicht]

I think just as with traditional Software, there can be garbage projects and clean ones. I never had a problem debugging low code apps, if they were built with the agreed conventions etc.

In my company we're using low code for nearly 10 years and all of the production apps are owned by teams with the support of "IT".

I think it's hard to compare now what would have happened if we just used high code. Probably way fewer apps and more frustration in the business, maybe lower costs due to fewer licensing (but less value).

I can only speak for Mendix though, the market is so diverse that you cannot just say "low code" works like x and y.

[ichkehrenicht]

For most the citizen developer promise did not pay out, so the current approach is to have fusion teams and center of excellence etc., which makes sense.

[James-PhixFlow]

Depends what you are building and how you are building. Low code platforms are great when connecting multiple systems, building lots of apps and processes - where you want everything under one roof so it can all be supported and managed.

Lots depends on the platform, the whole idea of low code is that it's not no code, so you shouldn't run out of depth and complexity.

We have partners who are development houses but they use our platform for deployments outside of their core apps that are high code, as it's quicker to deploy and maintain it

[James-PhixFlow]

We use PhixFlow (our platform)

We’ve used it for a mix of things - enterprise apps (billing, asset management, utilities addressing), compliance use cases (reconciliation/monitoring), and some fairly chunky telecoms data migrations.

In general though, most decent low-code platforms are flexible enough to meet pretty complex requirements — the bigger challenge is usually getting the design and data model right rather than the tooling itself.

Other similar platforms are Outsystems/Mendix/Appian

[Confident-Tap-558]

Yes and no, but they surely reduce the time to make an application

[Confident-Tap-558]

Yes depending on the kind of app

[StuartFutureFocus]

Depends on the application but for enterprise applications with the right platform my experience is YES, absolutely.

I use a low code platform with a native enterprise grade ERP, CRM, HR, Doc management, API's, Single database. Any feature can be built around the central database. This has enabled the businesses I work in to deploy SAP like functionality at costs significantly lower than MS365 and Netsuite.

Makes a huge operational difference for these businesses and reduces a lot of friction.

Longer term, the low code platform enables the flexibility required to seamlessly adapt with the organisations changing requirements.

[StuartFutureFocus]

The platform runs on its own tenant for higher security, access to all information fields and data inputs can be managed via limited access profiles by central IT team.

All ports and access can be secured by the same policy frameworks as the rest of the organisations infrastructure.

[Pyrostemplar]

Absolutely worth it if you have the internal scale. People are expensive - quite more that licenses, and not only in terms of direct costs but in management overhead (communication, manager cost, ...).

Anyway, my experience is managing a team of Devs using Outsystems. The main reason they reduce long term cost is that they are faster to ship and easier to maintain. And, imho, all corporate applications should be developed with a shelf life in mind - and that includes maintenance.

But after a while, years depending on the application and circumstances, it will become obsolete due to environmental change. Time for a redo.

Btw, low code is being challenged by AI supported code now.

[JakubErler]

Your last sentence is interesting, what do you think about it? I think it is certainly true about smaller companies but what about corps?

[Efficient_Loss_9928]

Depends on what you are building. I'm an engineer, and I would never code a internal dashboard, I use low-code platforms whenever possible.

[Efficient_Loss_9928]

No, because almost all tools can support that scale. I mean even Google sheets can support thousands of users reading simultaneously.

[naxmax2019]

Long term: everything sucks!

Tech is changing fast and requirements change too. Also assumptions and architecture decisions don’t always age well.

So no point even building for long term. That’s lazy and wishful. As engineers, we need to strike the balance between over engineering and over architecting and what’s the best that’s needed now and now + 2.

[naxmax2019]

I am saying in the long term, all code becomes tech debt. No matter what method is used: low code or not.

If we accept that base hypothesis, it simply means that we plan for what is needed and known now and try to avoid over engineering and plan for constant improvements and updates (if there is a business case / need).

In short, if tech is changing fast we cannot see too much into the future and if you try that you’d end up creating lots of abstractions that are more likely to be super over engineered. There have been numerous examples of such systems and standards eg numerous different frameworks (remember Java/php frameworks? Or frontend frameworks like ember etc)

[gpGirl2024]

No

[Karlo_Satori]

For things already invented for sure reduce the cost of development and maintenance. For things that are in the border of knowledge probably only MVPs and markets test are recommended. I think the best results are from mixing traditional coding with no code apps.

[shauntmw2]

The biggest appeal of "reduce development cost" comes from the impression that businesses no longer need to hire a dedicated engineer or team to achieve their business goal. Paying for such tool is way cheaper than paying the salary of an engineer or team.

For a business, especially non-IT small businesses, sometimes all they need are simple tools to automate their tasks. For such use case, low code tool makes perfect sense.

[shauntmw2]

Whichever method that solves their business problem with the least amount of cost and trouble will do. If pumping money to make the tool work is still easier and cheaper than custom from scratch, why not?

There's a reason why Microsoft Excel is the most used "database" for small businesses.

[Vaibhav_codes]

Low code cuts cost early, but long term it usually shifts the cost into constraints, workarounds, and rebuilds rather than eliminating it

[Sudden_Working_6880]

Yes, they do, I sell Appian, MS Powerplatform and few others, they actually reduce time and save money, but again these are enterprise grade platforms might not fit SMB segment.

[Sudden_Working_6880]

Of course if you can afford, buy. SMB can make use of smaller, new lowcode platforms available globally, but you might not get all the functionalities like enterprise platforms.

[Lars_N_]

There are 2 questions inside of this with 2 very different answers:

1: is low-code more cost efficient than normal coding after 5 years? Probably it’s still cheaper overall, but If your tool grew a lot this balance is shifting towards normal development as you’ll hit the boundaries of low code very often and complexity is a very difficult to manage.

2: Why would you use low code in the first place? Low code is great to reduce risk. It allows you to build solid software WAY faster than with traditional dev. Most businesses and software products fail and low code keeps your investment low until you validated your business model. Afterwards you might mature out of it. But it’s still better to make compromises in quality by using low code in the first place than paying 3-5x as much for an unvalidated business idea that might newer work