Comparative analysis of frameworks for mobile application development: native, hybrid or cross-platform solutions
https://doi.org/10.21822/2073-6185-2025-52-1-122-133
Abstract
Objective. The purpose of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of various frameworks for the development of mobile applications: native, hybrid and cross-platform solutions.
Method. To achieve this goal, methods of analysis, synthesis and comparison were used. The characteristics of various mobile application development frameworks were analyzed, including their performance, cost, and access to device capabilities.
Result. Native frameworks have been found to have the highest performance and the ability to provide the most native look and functionality for an application. This approach has limitations as it requires separate development for each platform, which leads to increased time and resource costs. Hybrid solutions have proven to be cost-effective, allowing you to use a single code base to create applications for different platforms. This simplifies the development and maintenance process. Hybrid apps may have limited performance due to the use of WebView to display the interface and limited access to device capabilities. Cross-platform frameworks, on the other hand, provide a balance between performance and resource efficiency. They allow you to use a single code base to create applications for multiple platforms and can achieve satisfactory performance. However, they may have limited access to certain device capabilities and the appearance of applications.
Conclusion. The results make a new contribution to the field by providing a detailed analysis of mobile app development approaches and frameworks used to build them. The results can be used to make informed decisions regarding the choice of framework for mobile app development.
About the Author
A. B. Temirova
M.D. Millionshchikov Grozny State Oil Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aza B. Temirova, Senior lecturer, Department of Information Technology,
100 Isaev Ave., Grozny 364051
References
1. Alrabaiah, H.A., & Medina-Medina, N. (2021). Agile beeswax: Mobile app development process and empirical study in real environment. Sustainability, 13(4), article number 1909. DOI: 10.3390/su13041909.
2. Biørn-Hansen, A., Rieger, C., Grønli, T.M., Majchrzak, T.A., & Ghinea, G. (2020). An empirical investigation of performance overhead in cross-platform mobile development frameworks. Empirical Software Engineering, 25, 2997-3040. DOI: 10.1007/s10664-020-09827-6.
3. Dittrich, F., Albrecht, U.V., Scherer, J., Becker, S.L., Landgraeber, S., Back, D.A., Fessmann, K., ... Klietz, M.L. (2023). Development of open backend structures for health care professionals to improve participation in app developments: Pilot usability study of a medical app. JMIR Formative Research, 7, article number е42224. DOI: 10.2196/42224.
4. Fojtik, R. (2019). Swift a new programming language for development and education. In T. Antipova & Á. Rocha (Eds.), Digital Science 2019; 1114: 284-295). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-37737-3_26.
5. Hu, J., Wei, L., Liu, Y., & Cheung, S.C. (2023). ωTest: Webview-oriented testing for android applications. In ISSTA 2023: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on software testing and analysis 2023:992-1004). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: 10.1145/3597926.3598112.
6. Kaczmarczyk, A., Zając, P., & Zabierowski, W. (2022). Performance comparison of native and hybrid android mobile applications based on sensor data-driven applications based on Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and Wi-Fi communication architecture. Energies, 15(13), article number 4574. DOI: 10.3390/en15134574.
7. Karatanov, O., Yena, M., Bova, Y., & Ustymenko, O. Comparison of popular test frameworks JUnit and TestNG. Young Scientist, 2021:5(93), 164-170. DOI: 10.32839/2304-5809/2021-5-93-31. (In Russ)
8. Kozub, Н., & Kozub, Yu. (2022). Declarative method for creating multiplatform applications. Bulletin of the Eastern Ukrainian National University named after Volodymyr Dahl, 5(275), 10-15. DOI: 10.33216/1998-7927-2022-275-5-10-15.
9. Lachgar, M., Hanine, M., Benouda, H., & Ommane, Y. (2022). Decision framework for cross-platform mobile development frameworks using an integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology. International Journal of Mobile Computing and Multimedia Communications, 13(1), 1-22. DOI: 10.4018/ijmcmc.297928.
10. Martínez, M. (2019). Two datasets of questions and answers for studying the development of cross-platform mobile applications using Xamarin framework. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 6th international conference on mobile software engineering and systems (MOBILESoft) (pp. 162-173). Piscataway: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. DOI: 10.1109/mobilesoft.2019.00032.
11. Masaad Alsaid, M.A.M., Ahmed, T.M., Sadeeq, J., Khan, F.Q., Mohammad, & Khattak, A.U. (2021). A comparative analysis of mobile application development approaches: Mobile application development approaches. Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences: A. Physical and Computational Sciences, 58(1), 35-45. DOI: 10.53560/PPASA(58-1)717.
12. Raeesi, A., Khajouei, R., & Ahmadian, L. (2022). Evaluating and rating HIV/AIDS mobile apps using the feature-based application rating method and mobile app rating scale. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 22, article number 281. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-022-02029-8.
13. Singh, M., & Shobha, G. (2021). Comparative analysis of hybrid mobile app development frameworks. International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering, 10(6), 21-26. DOI: 10.35940/ijsce.f3518.0710621.
14. Sun, C., Ma, Y., Zeng, D., Tan, G., Ma, S., & Wu, Y. (2021). μDep: Mutation-based dependency generation for precise taint analysis on android native code. In IEEE transactions on dependable and secure computing, 2021:20(2):1461-1475. Piscataway: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. DOI: 10.1109/TDSC.2022.3155693.
15. Thamutharam, Y.N., Mustafa, M.B.P., Musthafa, F.N., & Tajudeen, F.P. (2021). Usability features to improve mobile apps acceptance among the senior citizens in Malaysia. ASM Science Journal, 16. DOI: 10.32802/asmscj.2021.686.
16. Tkachuk, A., & Bulakh, B. (2022). Research of possibilities of default refactoring actions in swift language. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 2022;5(2(67)):6-10. DOI: 10.15587/2706-5448.2022.266061.
17. Uplenchwar, S.R., Denge, U.S., Bajoriya, A.S., & Bachwani, S.A. (2022). Review on detail information about flutter cross platform. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 2022;10(1):1016-1022. DOI: 10.22214/ijraset.2022.39977.
18. Wu, C., Pérez-Álvarez, J.M., Mos, A., & Carroll, J.M. (2022). Codeless app development: Evaluating a cloud-native domain-specific functions approach. In Proceedings of the 56th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HICSS 2022:6904-6913). Washington: IEEE Computer Society. DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2210.01647.
19. Ziyodullayevich, A.Q., Babakulovich, Z.R., Bakhodirovna, M.Z., Bekmurodovich, S.A., & Akif-ogli, M.R. (2019). Efficient and convenient application to determine the functions and analysis of the reliability of the device. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 2019;9(2):1804-1809. DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.b7323.129219.
20. Zohud, T., & Zein, S. (2021). Cross-platform mobile app development in industry: A multiple case-study.
Review
For citations:
Temirova A.B. Comparative analysis of frameworks for mobile application development: native, hybrid or cross-platform solutions. Herald of Dagestan State Technical University. Technical Sciences. 2025;52(1):122-133. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21822/2073-6185-2025-52-1-122-133
Views:
80
Email this article 
