OutSystems Reviews

We use OutSystems for developing applications that are used by clients in Canada, USA, and Europe. OutSystems has been very effective for us in developing both web and mobile applications. It has reduced our development time by around 30 to 40 percent.

We've used features like batch processing timers, components, and integrations with other systems like SAP, which have accelerated our development process. In terms of productivity, we've seen a 30 percent reduction in screen design time and an additional 10 percent improvement when implementing client requirements. OutSystems' integration capabilities have significantly enhanced our app's functionality, making it quicker and easier to connect with other systems.

While I can't speak to the market impact, as a developer, I've seen significant reductions in development time across different versions of our applications. One area for improvement would be the UI controls in Service Studio. Sometimes, controls don't appear in the IDE, requiring us to check them in the web browser instead. Overall, our experience with OutSystems has been positive, though improvements in UI development would be welcomed.

I've been with OutSystems for about three and a half years now.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the stability of OutSystems at nine.

In terms of scalability, I'd rate it at eight.

OutSystems' technical support has been very helpful and responsive.

Positive

Before OutSystems, I mainly worked with .NET and Android development.

Deployment with OutSystems has generally been straightforward, although we've encountered some challenges with UI development.

I'm mostly focused on development, but our DevOps and maintenance team consists of about five to six people.

The main benefits we've seen after implementing OutSystems include significant time savings, improved deployment processes, and convenient configuration settings in the service center.

As for licensing costs, I'm not directly involved in that aspect.

Overall, I'd rate OutSystems a nine out of ten.

We are using all aspects of OutSystems. We use it in almost all of our applications, application development, migration, and modernization. Basically, we use it for almost any traditional technology like .NET and Java.

OutSystems requires only one skill set for both the frontend and backend. As the world is heading towards scarcity of resources, this is a major advantage.

The visual program of OutSystems is one of the major advantages of this solution. Because of this, we don't need to have a separate skill for the front and backend services or extensions, it only requires one skill set. 

Another valuable feature is the speed of the entire implementation of the solution. 

The solution is ground up, it follows exactly what the developer does. The product could be improved if there was a shortcut, or predefined, predictable templates provided. Infusing AI that would automate the process would be game-changing. 

On a logical level, if data on a form is automated, it would be great if when required, the developer can then go and look for it. 

I have been using OutSystems for seven years.

Technical support is good. They are responsive and knowledgeable.

The initial setup of OutSystem is very simple. I would rate the implementation a four out of five for ease of setup.

The solution is not open source. It is a platform that is given free of cost to the developers. When it comes to commercial use, there are restrictions and costs. 

I believe they have two pricing options. One is approximately $4000 USD a year and the other is approximately $10,000 USD a year.

Obviously, you need to incur your own infrastructure costs or maybe even your own server. Other costs come in the form of security, maintenance, and the amount of data required to be held in the cloud.  

The implementation of the solution is fast, but the challenge is that the guy who is on the ground needs to understand the framework. The framework you are building makes a difference.

Overall, I would rate OutSystems a nine out of ten.

The solution can be used to develop apps, websites, and core applications. We are working for an insurance company on an application to digitize hundreds of documents. We also work for a bank on an application to manage time and time sheets.

It is easy to develop things. It is much easier to develop applications with the product’s IDE.

OutSystems is creating a new platform on the cloud called ODC. The new version could be improved.

I have been using the solution for about five years.

The tool is quite stable. It depends on the way we use it.

Our clients are medium and large enterprises.

My team contacts support. The support responds quite well.

Positive

We have used some local platforms before.

The initial setup is straightforward. Normally, the solution is cloud-based, but it depends on the clients. For the setup of the platform, we must have a contract and license from OutSystems. The setup takes one to three weeks.

The return on investment is difficult to measure, but the time to market is much faster.

OutSystems has a lot of traction in Portugal. We are studying Mendix and Appian to see if they could be adequate in some cases. Some clients don't have the capacity to support OutSystems, or they might be using other tools. We want to adapt to other platforms and tools. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I have used it for a company in Saudi Arabia. The application was mainly focused on transportation. The other application is a recent upgrade.

I love OutSystems because, as a manager and someone who has experience with various traditional development technologies (approximately 20 technologies), it provides a standard approach. Unlike other companies where there is no development standard, with OutSystems, we have our own standard. This makes it easier when transitioning between developers or onboarding new team members.

It's not easy to master OutSystems within the first month. Even if you have ten years of experience, like me, it will take about two to three months to explore everything. For example, customizing a header or integrating a video is not easy. 

Many people assume that mastering OutSystems is as simple as drag and drop, but for specific tasks, you need someone with development experience, preferably a senior or expert with over five years of experience. 

Sometimes it requires both skills, someone who knows how to develop and add script code or extensions to our system. However, there are also times when it is easy. Let's say around seventy percent of the time; it's easy. Customizing the user interface, aside from the header, is relatively straightforward, although I did encounter difficulties with the header. 

Another example is working with live video, which is also not easy.

I have been using OutSystems for one year.

It is very stable. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

The scalability of OutSystems is not bad. I know someone who conducted a scalability test. They used SCC Solutions, a telecom company with a great team of developers. They encountered some issues compared to what OutSystems claimed. However, I believe you always need to have a package that can handle more users than OutSystems recommends. 

If they suggest an eight-gigahertz processor, you should go for a better specification. But overall, it's not a major problem. Just make sure to exceed the recommended specifications. OutSystems is widely used in many regions. It's extensively utilized in the UK and Australia, as I have experience working with these countries. However, in some countries, traffic and other factors can make it more challenging.

I did contact the customer service and support team, but they mostly provide general IT support.

I believe there is room for improvement in technical support. However, they are good and responsible in terms of providing documentation and guidance to help you.

I believe you would need someone who is already good in development or has a logical understanding of development. OutSystems has four layers: the timers and processes layer, the interface layer, the version layer, and the database layer. 

Sometimes, when you add a module from the first layer, it doesn't work because it needs to be compatible and supported by the OutSystems platform. Many components or modules from the first layer are often incomplete or non-functional when compared to the later layers. 

Therefore, you need to comprehend the logic and then integrate it. It's not always straightforward. There are challenges involved. 

If you don't have someone who is already skilled in development, most of the time, you won't succeed. I believe you need a certain level of intelligence to excel in OutSystems. You have to be intelligent, like in development. 

I've brought in many developers who weren't skilled in development and put them in our system. They excelled at all the traditional tasks but when I asked for any custom work, it took them around one month to finish.

The deployment process is very easy. It involves just one publish button. They call it the "one publish" button.

In our system, there are always many challenges in development. For example, you don't need an administrator or a developer because we have something called architecture AI. It can evaluate your application and determine if it follows the best practices or not. We already have a baseline of good practice cases or standards for our system, so we're not far from the best practices. There are certain things you can't do directly, like calling a server action. Instead, you need to use client actions. 

There are many perspectives like this that you need to consider. Otherwise, it won't work. For example, you can't simply drag and drop a client action inside a server action. 

I believe anyone would require about two to three months of training, and they would need to build their own application. The issue in our system is that sometimes developers are only skilled in either logic or UI. I think it's important to train people to be proficient in all aspects.

There is an annual cost of approximately 23k. So sometimes, you need to wait for a return on investment. It also requires skilled individuals who know how to utilize this technology and train others. Finding good developers isn't easy because most of the people who work with OutSystems come from Big Data or have multiple engineering backgrounds. We face difficulties in finding the right people, and I think this is a common issue across platforms. Nonetheless, I consider it a unique feature.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. I still believe in our system, despite some limitations in traditional development. There is always room for improvement. 

I think they are constantly making progress and adding new features. However, sometimes it's not easy to achieve customizations.

I am using OutSystems in internal workflow processes for approving expenses.

The solution has helped us, but it's no longer a strategic choice for us. We are not investing anymore in this platform. We realized the value of using OutSystems if you have an internal development capability. We've been using the solution mostly in outsourcing for development tasks, and it doesn't make much sense to us, to pay the amount for the solution for the capital gains to go to the external provider we use for the development.

If I have a large team of developers, eventually using the solution would make sense. That's not the case. In my business model for IT, I do not have any internal development capability. I'd rather do it without a rapid development platform because the savings go to the provider. It doesn't go to me. I have to pay for the ticket and then I have to pay additional costs for the development. It doesn't make any sense. It is a good solution and technology, it only does not fit our use case.

The most valuable feature of OutSystems with discipline and the development processes. Instead of each developer doing tasks on their own with their own approach, et cetera, the solution would help bring some organization to the development process. 

I have been using OutSystems for approximately five years.

We did not experience a time when the solution did not perform, the solution is stable.

I rate the stability of OutSystems an eight out of ten.

The solution can scale. However, the catch is the pricing has become more and more expensive in the last few years. Consumption is increasing, and the price has increased a lot.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution in my company.

The support is not provided by OutSystems themselves. It's the service vendors, the integrators. There is a shortage of skilled workers that are knowledgeable of the tweaks of the platform and the shortcuts that can increase the productivity of using it.

We are using ServiceNow and it's depicted as a container for OutSystems. It's not the same, but it has the capability of doing some type of rapid development, and we are using it more and more.

The largest obstacle currently associated with OutSystems is its high cost and limited availability of skilled personnel. Despite being a rapid application development platform, having a highly skilled individual familiar with the platform can be much more beneficial than an inexperienced individual. Because there is a shortage of people with the necessary OutSystems skills, utilizing the platform can become expensive. This makes little sense, considering that a rapid application development platform should be accessible to the average person. However, having a highly skilled individual can greatly increase productivity, making the cost worthwhile.

I rate the initial setup of OutSystems a four out of ten.

I have not seen a return on investment using OutSystems.

OutSystems is expensive, and they changed the pricing model in the last couple of years.  It's changing too much and it's becoming unstable. They are constantly shifting their prices based on users, courses, and other factors.

To ensure that we will be able to benefit from leveraging internal development capability, I would suggest using a tool, such as OutSystems. With this solution, it is possible to increase the average productivity of the existing team of developers. Even a small increase of two to three percent can lead to significant gains. However, if there is a limited number of developers, it may be difficult to realize substantial productivity gains from using OutSystems.

I rate OutSystems a seven out of ten.

It is kind of used for reactive and web applications. We're also working on the mobile applications as well. I use it in a banking environment. 

I've been onboarded there and then I'm just doing the activities for both internet banking as well as mobile banking, handling both servers as well as the front end.

Currently, this banking application can consist of both mobile as well as internet banking. We have it for eight different countries. For mobile, we have eight different applications, and for internet banking, it is a single application, however, it'll support eight entities in eight countries including Bahrain, the UK, Iraq, et cetera.

Normally we use it in a banking setup. Usually, transfer payment and then the benefits pay gateway, are those kinds of integrations we are doing currently for mobile. The onboarding process we do, the login for that process, et cetera, offer good features. 

We have one feature called multiple payments where we're able to select multiple beneficiaries and we're able to create ad hoc beneficiaries. Ad hoc beneficiaries mean there's no need to add the benefits directly. We can enter the beneficiary upon the number and we can do the payment. We can add multiple beneficiaries in a single go and then we will do the validation. 

We have a back office application as well where we can configure based upon the user as well as based upon the segment. We can configure per day.

We're able to do transformations. We can do the validation before calling the API. Once validation is done, we will show the set of validation. Either it can be the OTP validation or it can be a token validation. Once that is done, we can call the final API, which calls the code banking system for doing the payments.

We've acquired a new bank and would like to integrate e-services into the offering. We'd like to be able to have an option for doing an activation directly from the internet banking area so that there is no need to contact the bank directly. Having e-services capabilities would be ideal. 

There are a lot of enhancements and new features coming.

Currently, in mobile applications, we don't have push notifications. We're hoping that will come in the new release. 

I've been using the solution for 3.5 years. 

It's stable enough. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. If I want to do any changes or anything, it has a one-click publish. There's no need to re-upload anything. We make changes, we expand, and it is a one-click deployment.

Currently, in Bahrain alone, there are 40,000 users on the app. We have the same for other countries as well. We have deployed more production for three entities - Bahrain, Egypt, and the UK. Currently, for the other three entities, it is in progress. We are planning to move those changes at the end of September.

We can add users as necessary. In LifeTime, we're able to handle user management. We're able to create a set of users and we can assign roles. It can be an admin role, like full control where it's able to do publishing, feedbacking, everything. We can receive a set of users and control access to certain areas. 

Technical support is very good. If there is any production issue or anything, we can raise the ticket and they're immediately helping. If there are any deployment changes that get affected, it means we have control of all directions also. Therefore, we can manage everything properly, without any effect, actually. Everything is completely handed down to OutSystems and it is more stable. If any deployment causes us an issue we can revert back to the older version and it'll work fine.

Before that, I used a server platform called Forti. It is similar to the OutSystems Platform. We were able to use mobile and web publications and able to create using that.

I worked on an AD platform as well. 

Comparatively, I'm able to see OutSystems is very easy to maintain and easily fulfills the business requirements. 

The deployment and process depends upon the model we are selecting. Normally consider if we are selecting big models, it'll take around 30 to 40 minutes for making a deployment to set up 15 applications. For example, if it is a mobile application, it means if we can select only the application, it will take a maximum of five to ten minutes for creating the solution and deploying in the UIT of production. For internet banking, we use Windows authentication, ID logins. For mobile banking, we used third-party APIs. We used common plugins for the camera location and everything. We integrated with Apple, Google, and Apple Wallet also.

Everything is completely handled in OutSystems, so we have a LifeTime available in OutSystems. Previously, we don't have LifeTime so we manually exported the solution and we deployed it in the UIT. With the help of LifeTime, we're able to see the versions and the differences. We can select the proper particular application and we can do the deployment. It is easy to maintain and easy to deploy as well.

For doing the deployments, any changes, are completely handled on our side.

I'm not sure how the licensing is set up. I don't handle that aspect.

However, I am able to see it s very costly as compared to other platforms. That said, we see the benefit of paying so much. They provide a lot of options. 

While we use version 11.10.20 for service, the service center for LifeTime is 11.0. Currently, we need to upgrade that. The upgrade plan is in progress. We have had to start recently.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I would rate it eight out of ten.

Our use case is mainly for the manual control systems.

There are about 20 developers using this solution in my company.

The scratch coding is useful. The solution is easy to understand.

React is very easy to use for an experienced software developer.

It's difficult to do the component version control. I would like them to add more studying materials.

I have been using this solution for about six months.

Some systems have over 1,000 end users. It's very stable for heavy duty operation.

It's scalable.

Technical support is good.

For one developer to use, the cost is around $5,000.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

We use OutSystems for the same purpose as Mendix, but we recommend Mendix for mobile applications and OutSystems for B2C or B2B web portals. OutSystems has strong features for creating web-based portals or eCommerce marketplaces.

Mendix supports Java, while OutSystems supports .NET. We are using the latest versions of OutSystems. We are partnered with Mendix and OutSystems. We have access to their partner portal, so we don't need to worry about developing applications, proofs of concept, or prototypes using OutSystems.

OutSystems has on-premise and cloud versions. It can be deployed on AWS, Azure, or GCP. OutSystems is available as a Platform-as-a-Service, as well. OutSystems can be hosted on Azure, GCP, or AWS, and you can deploy OutSystems components on OutSystems PaaS. 

The architecture of OutSystems is quite simple, and the features are similar to Mendix's. OutSystems has connectors for different enterprise apps and solid reporting capabilities. You can also integrate with any content management platform like SharePoint or Adobe Enterprise Manager, or something like that. You can also create and integrate workflows. 

We'd like OutSystems to add stronger workflow-based automation similar to what Appian offers. It needs more workflow modeling and RPA features.

I have been using OutSystems for the last three years.

Like Mendix, OutSystems has a highly scalable and flexible architecture. 

We are an OutSystems partner, so I have an excellent rapport with alliance managers and their technical architecture team and technical support. They're incredibly supportive. I rate OutSystems eight out of 10. 

Positive

We are using almost all the local solutions, including OutSystems, Mendix, Appian, etc.

Setting up OutSystems is straightforward. 

OutSystems isn't expensive. It's very similar to the cost of Mendix. If customers have a good relationship with OutSystems or Mendix, they can get a better price. The solutions have a similar pricing model, including licenses for single or multiple users.

I rate OutSystems nine out of 10. OutSystems is the market leader in the local area space on the Gartner Magic Quadrant. As a user, I can say OutSystems is on par with Mendix, and the features are similar, so now it depends on the use case. 

For example, some customers prefer Mendix because they have SAP ecosystems, so they will go with Mendix because it offers native SAP support. Mendix has SAP adapters that are all license-free. These are cost reasons people might choose Mendix. However, there are some cases where an SAP might go for OutSystems because the license is a bit cheaper.