Response to the critical video on Low-code: debunking misconceptions and highlighting the true value of Low-Code

We watched Micode’s video criticizing Low-Code, and we decided to respond to it point by point. In fact, we will embed the YouTube video directly into this article so that everyone can form their own opinion. In this video, Micode highlights several limitations of Low-Code, including high costs, scalability issues, collaboration difficulties, and the risk of vendor lock-in. While some of these criticisms are valid, they are largely based on poor stack choices, which do not necessarily reflect the true potential of Low-Code when used correctly.

‍

‍

In this article, we will debunk these misconceptions and demonstrate how, with a well-thought-out strategy and the right selection of tools, Low-Code can be a relevant growth driver for businesses and entrepreneurs. We will explore how to avoid common pitfalls, optimize costs, and ensure seamless scalability while maintaining technical flexibility. Instead of dismissing these solutions outright, it is crucial to understand how to use them wisely to maximize their value.

‍

1. “Low-Code is too expensive”

The example given in the video concerns a startup that had to pay thousands of euros in subscriptions for Low-Code tools. It is true that a solution like Airtable combined with Softr can quickly become a financial burden if one exceeds certain limitations imposed by their pricing models. However, this observation does not mean that Low-Code is inherently expensive. What matters most is the choice of tools and the optimization of their usage.

A relevant alternative to Airtable is Supabase, an open-source relational database that offers a real-time API and scalability tailored to business needs. Unlike Airtable, Supabase allows for advanced data management while providing full control over infrastructure and costs, particularly through self-hosting. By opting for a solution like this, it is possible to significantly reduce expenses while benefiting from increased flexibility.

Cost optimization also relies on making smart choices when selecting automation and interface creation tools. For instance, instead of using Zapier, which charges per use and can quickly become expensive, it is preferable to turn to N8N, an open-source alternative that allows for workflow automation without incurring exponential costs.

Thus, the problem does not stem from Low-Code itself but rather from poor tool selection and a lack of strategic planning. An entrepreneur or company that takes the time to carefully choose their solutions can drastically reduce costs while enjoying the speed and flexibility that Low-Code provides. Far from being a financial dead-end, well-utilized Low-Code becomes a powerful lever to accelerate project development without breaking the budget.

‍

2. “Low-Code is not scalable”

Another argument raised in the video is that Low-Code hinders the growth of an application, mainly due to technical limitations imposed by the tools used. However, this claim is only valid if poor technological choices are made. When a well-thought-out strategy is implemented, Low-Code becomes a powerful accelerator that enables testing, validation, and product evolution without obstacles.

Many companies have adopted a hybrid approach combining Low-Code and traditional development. This strategy allows them to benefit from the speed and simplicity of Low-Code for prototyping and the initial versions of a product while keeping the option to gradually transition to native code as needs evolve. Instead of seeing Low-Code as a rigid solution, it should be considered a springboard, capable of accelerating the launch of an application while leaving the door open for more complex developments.

Interoperability also plays a key role in this growth dynamic. By opting for tools with robust and open APIs, it becomes possible to extract, migrate, and manage data without depending on a single provider. Companies that anticipate this issue from the outset avoid the trap of technological lock-in and retain full control over their infrastructure.

Finally, an approach based on self-hosting Low-Code tools can help bypass the limitations of SaaS solutions. Rather than being restricted by a subscription model or constraints imposed by a provider, it is wise to prioritize open-source solutions that offer complete control over the resources used and the performance of the application. This way, even an application initially built with Low-Code can evolve without major obstacles and adapt to the increasing demands of its users.

Thus, far from being a barrier to project evolution, Low-Code is an agile solution that, when properly used, allows for the rapid launch of a product while ensuring the necessary flexibility to adapt and optimize it over time.

‍

3. “Collaborating effectively in Low-Code is impossible”

The video highlights a real issue with Low-Code: the difficulty of collaboration when multiple people are working on the same project. And on this point, it must be acknowledged that Micode is not wrong. As an agency, BeBranded, we use Webflow to create websites for our clients, and we have personally experienced how working simultaneously on a project can quickly become a challenge. Webflow, for example, does not offer advanced version management or a system that allows for smooth simultaneous editing, making collaboration more complicated and often forcing teams to juggle workaround solutions.

This issue is not limited to Webflow. In general, many Low-Code and No-Code tools are still not fully optimized for effective team collaboration. Unlike traditional development environments that integrate version control solutions like Git, No-Code tools often impose a more linear approach where only one person can modify an element at a time. This can slow down production and create conflicts.

However, there are a few exceptions. Framer, for example, offers a better collaborative experience than Webflow, particularly with its more fluid real-time editing capabilities.

Despite these positive advancements, it is true that the majority of Low-Code solutions still lag behind traditional development tools in terms of collaboration. This does not mean that teamwork is impossible, but rather that it is often more restrictive and requires adopting specific methods to avoid conflicts. While one of Low-Code’s biggest advantages is its ease of use, there is still room for improvement in managing teamwork, especially for large-scale projects.

‍

{{blog_article_cta01}}

‍

4. “Automated workflows are uncontrollable”

Automation tools like Zapier or Make offer powerful features that allow automating numerous processes without writing a single line of code. However, if poorly configured, these tools can quickly become “black boxes,” making tracking and debugging complex. When an issue arises, it can sometimes be difficult to understand its origin, potentially leading to cascading errors that affect the entire system.

To avoid these pitfalls, it is essential to adopt a rigorous approach when setting up automation workflows. One of the first measures is to use logs and execution journals. Solutions like N8N and Make allow detailed tracking of each action performed in a workflow, helping to quickly identify and correct any errors. A best practice is to test each automation in a dedicated environment before deploying it to production.

It is also crucial to clearly separate testing and production environments. For example, N8N allows workflows to be configured in draft mode, ensuring they function correctly before going live. Working this way helps minimize the risk of major errors impacting end users.

Finally, not all automations are created equal, and some play a critical role in a project’s functionality. It is therefore essential to prioritize the most critical automations and subject them to rigorous validation before deploying them at scale. Regular quality control, combined with thorough testing, helps prevent unexpected failures and ensures the reliability of automated processes.

In summary, while No-Code and Low-Code automation tools provide significant value, their implementation should not be taken lightly. Careful configuration, rigorous monitoring, and a well-thought-out testing strategy help mitigate risks and ensure a smooth and effective automation process.

‍

5. “We are locked into a closed ecosystem”

One of the most common arguments against Low-Code and No-Code is the risk of Vendor Lock-in, meaning dependence on a specific tool or provider, making any future migration complicated and costly. It is true that some SaaS platforms impose significant restrictions on data exportability or compatibility with other systems. However, this issue can be avoided by adopting a thoughtful approach from the outset.

One of the best ways to mitigate this risk is to prioritize open-source and self-hosted tools, which offer greater flexibility and control. For instance, solutions like N8N for workflow automation or Supabase for database management help prevent being locked into a closed ecosystem. By opting for these technologies, it is possible to deploy tools on one’s own servers, ensuring full data access and greater autonomy over infrastructure and scalability.

It is also crucial to verify data exportability before committing to any tool. Some platforms offer limited or even non-existent export options, which can pose a significant challenge when migration is necessary. It is therefore recommended to research the available export formats, assess how easily data can be retrieved, and verify compatibility with other systems before integrating a solution.

Finally, it is always wise to anticipate a potential transition to a fully custom-coded solution. While Low-Code enables rapid and efficient development, some companies eventually reach a level of complexity that requires custom development. By maintaining a long-term vision and adopting interoperable tools, businesses can progressively migrate parts of their project to a tailor-made solution without the risk of being completely locked into one ecosystem.

Thus, Vendor Lock-in is not inevitable. By making the right technological choices from the beginning, it is entirely possible to harness the power of Low-Code while maintaining enough flexibility to evolve and adapt to future needs.

‍

Conclusion: Low-Code is powerful, but it must be well thought out

Low-Code is not a magical solution, but it serves as a powerful accelerator when used wisely. By selecting the right tools and understanding their limitations, it is possible to avoid common pitfalls related to costs, performance, and technical constraints. Rather than seeing it as a dead end, it should be considered an opportunity for rapid and agile development.

Moreover, the debate should not simply oppose Low-Code and traditional coding, but also include No-Code, which, despite its own limitations, further democratizes access to digital creation. Today, many solutions allow non-developers to test ideas, optimize processes, and innovate without requiring months of development. The future may lie in a hybrid approach, where No-Code, Low-Code, and custom coding intelligently coexist, each being used based on specific needs and objectives.

Rather than focusing on failures, we should concentrate on how these tools can be leveraged to their full potential. Ultimately, what matters is not the technology itself, but the ability to create, innovate, and adapt to the challenges of the digital world.