Choosing a mobile framework: a CTO’s perspective
- Aliaksei Ivanouski
- Dec 30, 2025
- 4 min read
Choosing the right technology stack is critical to a project's success, with a focus on development efficiency, scalability, and maintainability. A well-chosen stack meets growing user demands and business needs. This article addresses the real-life challenge of selecting a mobile technology stack for Sustylink, where I was a co-founder and CTO. Our platform is a mobile community network, and we faced critical decisions, including choosing the appropriate codebase, databases, cloud providers, and third-party services. Below, I share my thoughts on selecting a technology stack for developing Android and iOS components.
Quick overview.
Mobile frameworks are powerful tools that enable teams to develop comprehensive mobile applications efficiently. As shown in the chart below, Android and iOS are the most popular platforms, accounting for nearly 100 per cent of the global mobile market.
Each platform uses its native programming language for application development. However, in recent years, cross-platform frameworks have become very popular. These frameworks streamline development, enabling the codebase to be reused across platforms.
The need for significant upfront investment in mobile app development has given rise to this new trend. However, the high expectations could have been more evident at first. Due to the use of a non-native interface, performance problems constantly arose. Over time, many issues have been resolved using various approaches. However, expectations continue to rise, and I am not sure cross-platform development has even reached the “Peak of inflated expectations” according to Gartner’s Hype Cycle.
I challenged myself to choose the most suitable one for our startup. The options included native frameworks (Java/Kotlin and Swift), the two most popular cross-platform frameworks (Flutter and React Native), and Kotlin Multiplatform, which is one more promising tool with a different paradigm and significant potential.
Framework | Android native | iOS native | Flutter | React Native | Kotlin Multiplatform |
Programming language | Java/Kotlin | Swift | Dart | JavaScript | Kotlin |
Developed by | Sun Microsystems (now all rights belong to Oracle Corporation)/JetBrains | Apple | JetBrains | ||
First appearance | 1995 (Java) 2008 (Android) 2011 (Kotlin) | 2008 (iOS) 2014 (Swift) | 2011 (Dart) 2017 (Flutter) | 1995 (JavaScript) 2015 (React Native) | 2011 (Kotlin) 2017 (Kotlin Multiplatform) |
Core features.
Native Development: Optimized codebase for specific platforms, high security, uses platform-specific tools and APIs.
Flutter: Hot reloading, widget-based architecture.
React Native: Modular architecture, rich ecosystem of libraries.
Kotlin Multiplatform: Compatibility with platform APIs, optimized code organization.
Current use cases.
Flutter: BMW, Hamilton, Toyota, Alibaba, Google Pay.
React Native: Facebook, Walmart, Bloomberg, Instagram.
Kotlin Multiplatform: Netflix, Careem, Cash App, Xapo Bank.
Efficiency, productivity, and cost saving.
The potential for efficiency, productivity, cost savings, and quality improvements in mobile development is significant across both native and cross-platform frameworks. Native development focuses on performance optimization and seamless integration with platform-specific features, though it is costlier due to the need to maintain separate codebases. In contrast, cross-platform solutions like Flutter, React Native, and Kotlin Multiplatform offer cost efficiency and resource optimization. Flutter leads in rapid UI development with a rich widget library, React Native provides a modular architecture and an extensive ecosystem for code reuse, and Kotlin Multiplatform balances consistency and customization.
Maximizing value in development approaches.
Stakeholders prioritize user experience, performance, reliability, and time-to-market. Native development excels in performance and platform-specific integration but requires separate codebases, thereby increasing costs. Cross-platform tools such as Flutter, React Native, and Kotlin Multiplatform streamline development and reduce costs, appealing to organizations focused on efficiency, scalability, and innovation. For startups, these cross-platform solutions allow for faster market entry, which is life-essential. Flutter ensures consistent user experiences, React Native balances performance with JavaScript and native components, and Kotlin Multiplatform enables shared business logic across platform-specific UIs. Assessing value through ROI and cost-benefit analysis is crucial, as native development can yield high ROI but remains expensive.
The delivery process will not differ significantly across frameworks. Tools such as Xcode, Android Studio, IntelliJ IDEA, Flutter DevTools, and React DevTools streamline development and enable effective debugging and performance monitoring, regardless of the chosen stack. In parallel, CI/CD pipelines, automated testing, and modern project management practices ensure consistent and reliable delivery. When combined with practical implementation strategies such as rapid iteration, modular architecture, and incremental rollout, these practices support high product quality, faster user adoption, and sustainable long-term success across platforms.
Addressing major hurdles in value creation.
Key obstacles to creating value with these tools include platform-specific limitations and native development costs; stability and performance concerns in Flutter; complex animation requirements in React Native; and compatibility and support issues in Kotlin Multiplatform. Common challenges in adoption include high upfront costs and the need for specialized expertise, with platform-specific languages required for native development and support limitations in newer tools such as Kotlin Multiplatform. Mitigation strategies include robust initial planning, continuous testing, flexible project timelines, and community engagement to enhance compatibility, user experience, and scalability.
Conclusion.
In conclusion, we chose cross-platform development for its lower cost and faster time-to-market, both of which were critical at the MVP stage. Kotlin Multiplatform was initially selected for its innovative approach and strong alignment with my Kotlin expertise, particularly given my hands-on involvement in early product development. However, I was also responsible for backend and infrastructure work, which significantly constrained available time and resources. In this context, hiring a Flutter developer proved to be a more cost-effective and lower-risk option, allowing us to accelerate delivery without compromising MVP quality. While innovation remains important, cost efficiency and execution speed ultimately guided the decision at this stage.
Comments