Xamarin was Microsoft’s cross-platform framework allowing developers to write applications in C# that could run on iOS, Android, and Windows. It translated C# code into native binaries and mapped UI elements to platform-native controls, so that a button on iOS was a UIButton, while on Android it was a MaterialButton. This approach allowed teams to share business logic across platforms, but user interfaces often required platform-specific tweaks to maintain visual consistency. Applications also ran on the Mono runtime, which could add overhead and slow startup times, particularly on older devices.
Important note: Microsoft officially ended support for Xamarin in May 2024. Starting new projects in Xamarin is not recommended. Modern frameworks like Flutter provide active support, a unified workflow, and a rapidly growing ecosystem, making them safer choices for long-term development.
Flutter is Google’s cross-platform UI toolkit that uses Dart. Unlike Xamarin, Flutter renders all UI components through its own rendering engine (Skia/Impeller), ensuring pixel-perfect consistency across devices. Flutter compiles Dart code ahead-of-time into native machine code, improving performance and startup speed. Developers can interact with native APIs through Platform Channels, and Hot Reload allows nearly instant feedback on UI changes during development. Flutter is actively maintained and has a growing library of plugins, which simplifies integration with various backends, analytics, and native device features.
One of the most significant differences between Xamarin and Flutter lies in code reuse and cross-platform consistency. Xamarin allowed teams to share business logic written in C#, but UI code often required platform-specific modifications, resulting in additional maintenance overhead. Flutter, by contrast, enables a single codebase for both logic and UI, which guarantees consistent behavior and appearance across iOS, Android, and desktop platforms. This unified approach is especially advantageous for startups or small teams aiming to maintain one codebase rather than multiple native projects.
Time to market and development cost are also critical considerations. Xamarin projects could take longer due to the need to tweak UI elements for each platform and the overhead of the Mono runtime. Flutter’s Hot Reload and widget-based system allow developers to iterate quickly, test UI changes, and deploy features faster. Teams can work with fewer developers while maintaining consistent performance, reducing costs compared to Xamarin, where both C# expertise and platform-specific knowledge were required.
Integration with native SDKs and device features differs substantially. Xamarin required custom bindings or platform-specific code to access native functionality such as cameras, GPS, or sensors. Flutter provides a more streamlined approach via Platform Channels and a rich ecosystem of prebuilt plugins, making native integration easier to implement and maintain. This also improves app performance and reliability, since Flutter manages its own rendering engine rather than relying on platform-specific UI elements.
Performance is another notable contrast. Xamarin apps relied on the Mono runtime, which increased startup time and could limit frame rates in complex UIs. Flutter compiles directly to native code and uses its rendering engine for layouts and animations, providing smooth, predictable performance. Every widget is drawn consistently, giving developers full control over design and animations without worrying about subtle differences between platforms.
Regarding UI design and consistency, Xamarin depended on native widgets, which meant applications could look different on iOS and Android. Flutter’s engine draws all widgets itself, ensuring identical visuals and predictable behavior across platforms. This includes support for custom animations, transitions, and layouts, which are often critical for branding and user experience.
Xamarin has limited web capabilities and no dedicated Flutter-style web support. Flutter Web exists, but it is primarily suited for interactive apps rather than SEO-heavy websites. Teams need to plan carefully when combining Flutter mobile and web projects, whereas Xamarin offered no web output at all.
In terms of maintenance and community, Xamarin is deprecated, and its ecosystem is no longer growing, while Flutter receives frequent updates, plugin support, and has a rapidly expanding developer community. This makes Flutter the more reliable choice for new projects.
Finally, hiring and team expertise differ between the frameworks. Xamarin required developers skilled in C# and .NET, often coupled with platform-specific knowledge. Flutter requires familiarity with Dart and the widget-based layout system. As Flutter adoption grows, finding developers is becoming easier, especially for teams focused on mobile-first, cross-platform solutions.
| Xamarin | Flutter |
|---|---|
Reusable Code Base | |
Reusable Code Base | Reusable Code Base |
| Business logic reusable; UI often needs platform-specific adjustments | Single Dart codebase for logic and UI; pixel-perfect consistency across platforms |
Time to Market | |
Time to Market | Time to Market |
| Slower due to platform-specific UI tweaks and Mono runtime overhead | Hot Reload and unified widgets enable faster iteration and deployment |
Cost of Development | |
Cost of Development | Cost of Development |
| Higher, requires C#/.NET expertise and platform-specific work | Lower, one team can handle multiple platforms using Dart |
Integration with Native SDKs | |
Integration with Native SDKs | Integration with Native SDKs |
| Custom bindings or platform-specific code required | Platform Channels and prebuilt plugins simplify native access |
Performance | |
Performance | Performance |
| Mono runtime overhead; slower startup and variable frame rates | Compiled to native code; consistent performance and smooth animations |
UI and Design System | |
UI and Design System | UI and Design System |
| Native widgets vary between iOS and Android | Flutter draws all widgets; pixel-perfect and consistent across platforms |
Web Capabilities | |
Web Capabilities | Web Capabilities |
| Limited; no native web support | Flutter Web exists but optimized for interactive apps, not SEO-heavy sites |
Maintenance | |
Maintenance | Maintenance |
| Deprecated, no updates | Actively maintained, frequent releases |
Community & Ecosystem | |
Community & Ecosystem | Community & Ecosystem |
| Shrinking | Rapidly growing, strong plugin ecosystem |
Hiring & Team Expertise | |
Hiring & Team Expertise | Hiring & Team Expertise |
| Requires C#/.NET knowledge | Requires Dart knowledge and widget-based development experience |
| Xamarin | Flutter |
|---|---|
Reusable Code Base | |
Reusable Code Base | Reusable Code Base |
| Business logic reusable; UI often needs platform-specific adjustments | Single Dart codebase for logic and UI; pixel-perfect consistency across platforms |
Time to Market | |
Time to Market | Time to Market |
| Slower due to platform-specific UI tweaks and Mono runtime overhead | Hot Reload and unified widgets enable faster iteration and deployment |
Cost of Development | |
Cost of Development | Cost of Development |
| Higher, requires C#/.NET expertise and platform-specific work | Lower, one team can handle multiple platforms using Dart |
Integration with Native SDKs | |
Integration with Native SDKs | Integration with Native SDKs |
| Custom bindings or platform-specific code required | Platform Channels and prebuilt plugins simplify native access |
Performance | |
Performance | Performance |
| Mono runtime overhead; slower startup and variable frame rates | Compiled to native code; consistent performance and smooth animations |
UI and Design System | |
UI and Design System | UI and Design System |
| Native widgets vary between iOS and Android | Flutter draws all widgets; pixel-perfect and consistent across platforms |
Web Capabilities | |
Web Capabilities | Web Capabilities |
| Limited; no native web support | Flutter Web exists but optimized for interactive apps, not SEO-heavy sites |
Maintenance | |
Maintenance | Maintenance |
| Deprecated, no updates | Actively maintained, frequent releases |
Community & Ecosystem | |
Community & Ecosystem | Community & Ecosystem |
| Shrinking | Rapidly growing, strong plugin ecosystem |
Hiring & Team Expertise | |
Hiring & Team Expertise | Hiring & Team Expertise |
| Requires C#/.NET knowledge | Requires Dart knowledge and widget-based development experience |
8 min • Apr 29, 2024
Microsoft Xamarin support ends. Many Xamarin Teams are now deciding whether to migrate from Xamarin to MAUI or to choose some other framework for developing cross-platform mobile applications. The sooner you start migrating your mobile apps from Xamarin to Flutter, the sooner you will start reaping the benefits of this most capable framework. Read how to make this shift easier and faster.
8 min • May 9, 2024
Cross-platform solutions provide significant time and cost savings. However, you can encounter drawbacks with some platform-specific features and performance, and that’s where it’s worth being aware of the differences between each framework. Read our comparison of two popular solutions: Flutter vs. .NET Maui.
15 min. • Jan 9, 2026
Choosing the right tech stack is key if you aim to develop a powerful, user-friendly app with efficiency and performance. In this article, we explore the top six cross-platform frameworks, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, and the key factors to consider when making your choice.