top of page

Native vs. сross-platform development: Choosing the Right Approach for Your App


The mobile app ecosystem continues to expand rapidly, and it's truly astonishing how a new app addressing an immediate need can become an integral part of our daily routines in just a few days. The demand for new apps remains strong. You need to decide whether it will be native vs. cross-platform before starting the development process. This choice is significant as it affects many things. Therefore, we will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of every approach today, along with the opinions of our technical experts.

Native vs. сross-platform development: advantages and disadvantages

The term "native mobile application development" refers to developing a mobile application designed and optimized for just one mobile platform. IOS from Apple and Android from Google are the leading mobile OS systems. If you want to create your own iOS applications, you can choose between Objective-C and Swift; for Android apps, you can use Java or Kotlin.

High performance, user interaction, and visual effects tailored to the platform's user experience are all ensured by native application development. Native applications for both systems need to be developed simultaneously, which is expensive.

Among the other benefits of native mobile application development are the following:

  1. Functional. The developer will get access to all of the platform's APIs and features. There are no technical limitations.

  2. Organic promotion from AppStore/Play Market. Native applications often get better ratings and are simpler to distribute on the platform.

  3. Scalability. Native apps handle resources more flexibly and are scalable.

  4. A better user experience since the application was created to meet the platform's requirements.

  5. Native app development tools offer better security by providing platform-specific updates and closing potential vulnerabilities.

Disadvantages of Native Mobile Applications:

  1. The expense of developing for both iOS and Android is a massive issue of native development. In other words, it's an ongoing collaboration of two teams on different platforms. However, if you schedule it well and monitor the product, you will stay within the budget.

  2. Updating and maintaining require extra work since they are platform-specific. The application has been released, but issues regarding additional time and two separate teams still need to be solved.

  3. Extended cycle of development. Creating a native app for multiple platforms can extend the development cycle compared to cross-platform or web-based app development, potentially delaying the time it takes to launch the product.

Cross-platform development is the process of making an application that can run on more than one system. React Native, Xamarin, and Flutter are some of the technologies used for this, and the apps made with them may be used on both iOS and Android platforms. However, cross-platform development is very suitable for startups when it is necessary to release a product as quickly as possible.

What benefits may cross-platform mobile application development offer:

1. Cost. Saving money is achieved by just having to pay for one team.

2. Problem solved quickly. One cross-platform development cycle is needed to create an application for several platforms.

3. One code base, resulting from using a single cross-platform development tool to produce the program.

Cross-platform development has disadvantages, such as these:

1. Less productive. Cross-platform applications are slower than native ones due to the extra layer of abstraction and rendering process required.

2. Limited capabilities. Native app developers find it more straightforward to use smartphone functionalities like camera, microphone, and geolocation accessible to native apps.

3. Limited UX design. Native UX components can't be used with this building method.

Native vs. cross-platform app development: how to choose

There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches to creating mobile apps. We advise being mindful of the following aspects.

  1. The application's complexity. Cross-platform development is the most excellent option if you're making an application that only shows data received from the network. However, developing a native mobile application is recommended if your application requires extensive data processing or access to low-level APIs like Bluetooth.

  2. The budget. The creation of native apps is more costly than that of cross-platform applications. Since only one code base is required for one operating system, you may save around 40%.

  3. Time for development. Cross-platform development will save much time if you need to construct an MVP for both operating systems.

  4. Design of UI/UX. Native programming is just what you need if your project demands fantastic visual effects. In this instance, the application will be more productive, and developers will have access to UI/UX components.

The most suitable approach for you will be contingent on your unique needs and demands. If you prioritize top-notch performance and extensive customization, native development is the optimal choice. On the other hand, if you're budget-conscious or require a swift market entry, cross-platform development is a viable option.

In Muteki Group, we specialize in software development and offer tailor-made, innovative software solutions. When thinking of what to choose for your product Native vs. cross-platform application, just contact us. With our team of experienced developers, we can assist you in selecting the most suitable development approach to meet your specific requirements.


Muteki Group is a full-cycle software development company that has successfully completed 100+ AI projects for startups and enterprises since 2015. Our 80+ member team covers everything from the discovery phase to support. We are located in Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Japan, Canada, UAE, and the USA. 

For cooperation write us

  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

2024 © Copyright Muteki Group. All Rights Reserved

bottom of page