Lo-Code/No-Code (LCNC) platforms have gained popularity as a way to streamline software development, promising faster deployment and reduced costs. However, while these tools can be useful in certain scenarios, they are not a universal solution.

It’s important for organizations to thoughtfully assess where and how LCNC tools fit into their overall strategy. While these platforms offer many advantages, certain use cases may present challenges related to cost, control, or long-term scalability. This article explores when LCNC can be beneficial and highlights the risks associated with its misuse.

About the Author

Marcelino has 25 years of experience in software development and holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science. His doctoral research focused on language design and development paradigms within a software engineering research group, providing him with deep expertise in building robust and scalable software solutions.

Think Twice Before Using Lo-Code/No-Code (LCNC)

We can sum up our opinion on Lo-Code/No-Code (LCNC) platforms in two words: think twice. Our guidance comes from experience and encountering the use of LCNC multiple times.

While LCNC tools can be useful, their improper use can lead to serious challenges. Below are key considerations for determining when LCNC is beneficial and when it should be avoided.

When to Use LCNC

• Internal projects such as productivity tools
• Minimum viable products (MVPs)
• Specific tasks such as data visualization and reporting

When to Avoid LCNC

• Client-facing products or services
• Mission-critical or scalable software solutions

The Benefits of LCNC: Effective for Specific Use Cases

LCNC platforms are incredibly powerful—but only when used in the right context. They shine in specific, well-defined applications, enabling teams to move fast without waiting on full-scale development cycles. Think of them as power tools for business users: accessible, efficient, and great for solving certain kinds of problems. 

For instance:

• Excel for spreadsheets
• Power BI for reports
• Tableau for analytics

These are appropriate and effective uses of LCNC. But trouble starts when these tools are stretched beyond their intended scope. Imagine trying to build a client-facing website that depends on Excel for backend logic and dynamically serves Power BI reports to subscription clients. It might work in theory—but in practice, you’re likely setting yourself up for frustration and failure.

LCNC is best suited for internal productivity, quick prototypes, and small-scale applications—not for long-term, client-facing, production-level software.

The Risks of LCNC: Lack of Control Over Your Product

One significant risk with LCNC is the reliance on third-party platforms that may change their features or availability without warning.

A Real-World Example: When an LCNC Platform Shuts Down

A client of ours insisted on using an LCNC platform for part of their system. Unfortunately, the platform’s CEO later decided to discontinue support for the service. The API was shut down, and our client’s software ceased to function overnight. This unexpected change forced them to rebuild those components from scratch, causing major service disruptions and doubling their project budget.

By using an LCNC platform, you place control of your product in the hands of an external company whose decisions you cannot influence. In contrast, traditional programming languages like Python, Java, and C++ are supported by large developer communities, making them more sustainable and resilient.

While even code-based solutions can rely on third-party services such as cloud providers, these risks can be mitigated using multi-cloud strategies and tools like Terraform.

The Hidden Costs of LCNC: Not Always a Cheaper Alternative

LCNC is often marketed as an easy and cost-effective solution that eliminates the need for coding. However, there are hidden costs that must be considered:

1. The Learning Curve: LCNC platforms replace code with alternative methods, requiring developers to learn a new system. Training costs must be factored into the budget.
2. Lack of Industry Best Practices: Traditional software engineering follows best practices such as code version control, automated testing, modular architecture for maintainability, and seamless integration with third-party systems. LCNC platforms often lack these capabilities, leading to workarounds that can cause delays, increased costs, or even project failure.
3. Frequent Changes and Breaking Updates: Many LCNC platforms, especially less mature ones, undergo frequent changes due to poor initial design. Newer versions often introduce breaking changes, requiring parts of the system to be rewritten—adding to development time and cost.
4. Additional Licensing Fees: Many LCNC platforms require expensive licenses. In contrast, code-based solutions can often avoid these costs by leveraging open-source tools and frameworks.

Because of this, the effort and cost required to build solutions using LCNC can end up being the same or even more. To avoid this, use only well-established LCNC solutions, reduce the scope of your product, and really know the capabilities of your LCNC of choice.

The Limitations of LCNC: Growth Constraints and Subpar Code

LCNC platforms are specialized tools with limited scalability. However, software naturally evolves, and businesses often outgrow LCNC capabilities. Eventually, you may find yourself needing to write code within the platform (when possible like in Excel or PowerBI) or, in many cases, having to rewrite the entire system.

Platforms like Retool and Wix are particularly risky in this regard because their full capabilities are not always clear upfront. When businesses reach the limitations of an LCNC platform, the code that must be written within it often lacks best practices, leading to technical debt and inefficiencies.

We frequently take on projects to transition LCNC applications into full-fledged, code-based solutions. Many companies that initially chose LCNC eventually realize their limitations and seek a more sustainable and scalable alternative.

Conclusion: Proceed with Caution

Think long and hard before fully committing to an LCNC platform for your product. Seek multiple opinions and work closely with developers to understand the pros and cons of each LCNC solution.

While LCNC can offer significant advantages for specific use cases—such as internal productivity tools, MVPs, or small-scale projects—it comes with considerable limitations and risks. These platforms often lack scalability, resilience, and adherence to best practices, which can result in unexpected costs, technical debt, or even catastrophic failures. Additionally, dependency on third-party platforms places your product’s stability and future in the hands of decisions beyond your control.

For client-facing, production-level software, the drawbacks of LCNC often outweigh the benefits. Carefully evaluate the scope of your project, consult experts, and work with developers to determine whether an LCNC solution is truly the right fit.

In short, think twice before relying on LCNC for critical applications—it may not be the cost-saving shortcut it appears to be.

For more information or to schedule some time with an advisor on this topic, please contact REEA Global at info@reeaglobal.com.