Compare
Custom MVP vs no-code tools
Short answer
No-code platforms like Bubble, Webflow, Softr and Glide are excellent and often the right answer: for standard patterns you can build something real yourself for a monthly subscription. The trade-offs are platform lock-in, per-user costs that scale badly, performance ceilings, and difficulty hiring for the platform later. A custom build costs $3,500 AUD once, runs on a mainstream stack any developer can extend, and is yours outright. Choose no-code if the product fits the platform and you want to build it yourself. Choose custom when the product is unusual, the economics of per-seat pricing do not work, or you want an asset rather than a subscription.
Side by side
| Factor | no-code tools like Bubble and Webflow | Launch My MVP |
|---|---|---|
| Up-front cost | Low or nothing | $3,500 AUD once |
| Ongoing cost | $30–$500+/month, scales with usage | Hosting and services only, often under $20/month at first |
| Who can change it | You, immediately | Any web developer, including us |
| Ownership | The platform hosts and controls it | Your repository, your hosting account |
| Ceiling | Hit it and the workarounds get ugly | No platform ceiling |
| Time to first version | Days to weeks of your own time | 48 hours of ours |
The case for no-code tools like Bubble and Webflow
You can genuinely build and change a working product yourself, with no developer at all — that is a real and significant advantage.
Monthly cost starts low, so the up-front outlay is much smaller than any custom build.
Iteration is immediate. Changing your mind costs an afternoon rather than a change request.
For standard patterns — an internal database app, a directory, a membership site, a marketing site with forms — these platforms are frequently the objectively better choice.
Where no-code tools like Bubble and Webflow tends to go wrong
- Lock-in is total. You cannot export a Bubble app and host it elsewhere; if pricing or terms change, you have no leverage.
- Costs scale in the wrong direction. Per-user or per-record pricing that is trivial at 50 users can be painful at 5,000.
- Performance and complexity ceilings are real. Products tend to work well until one specific requirement does not fit, at which point the workaround is worse than custom code would have been.
- Hiring is harder. There are far fewer Bubble specialists than React developers, and they cost more per hour.
- Investor due diligence occasionally treats a no-code build as a rebuild liability rather than an asset. This matters less than founders fear, but it is not nothing.
The case for a fixed-price build
You own the code and can host it anywhere, including for free on Vercel's hobby tier at low volume.
The stack is Next.js, React and TypeScript — the most widely known web stack there is, so your next developer is easy to find.
No per-user pricing. A thousand users cost roughly what fifty do.
No ceiling. Anything the web can do, the codebase can do, because it is not sitting inside somebody else's abstraction.
Choose no-code tools like Bubble and Webflow if
- Your product fits a standard pattern the platform already supports well.
- You want to build and change it yourself without waiting on anyone.
- You have almost no budget but plenty of time — that is a completely reasonable trade.
- It is an internal tool for a small team where per-seat pricing stays cheap.
Choose a fixed-price build if
- You have already hit a wall in a no-code tool and are working around the platform rather than building your product.
- Per-user pricing breaks your unit economics at the scale you are aiming for.
- You want an asset you own, not a subscription you depend on.
- You would rather spend the weekend on customers than on learning a platform.