10 Limitations of Mobile App Wrappers

Mobile app wrappers promise speed and affordability, but they come with trade-offs that can derail your app's performance, user experience, and long-term scalability. Before committing to a wrapper solution, you need to understand exactly what limitations you're accepting.

For teams seeking an alternative that avoids many wrapper pitfalls, Adalo offers a different path. Adalo is an AI-powered app builder for database-driven web apps and native iOS and Android apps—one version across all three platforms, published to the Apple App Store and Google Play. Unlike wrappers that simply display website content in a container, Adalo creates genuinely native experiences with direct access to device features. With over 3 million apps created on the platform, it's proven at scale.

Here are ten critical limitations of mobile app wrappers that could impact your project's success—from App Store rejections to platform lock-in—so you can make an informed decision about your development approach.

Mobile app wrappers are cost-effective and fast to deploy, but they come with several drawbacks that can impact performance, user experience, and scalability. Here's a quick summary of their key limitations:

• Slower Performance: WebView-based apps often lag due to reliance on remote content and slower rendering compared to native apps.
• App Store Rejections: Apps that resemble basic websites risk rejection from Apple and Google for failing to meet "app-like" standards.
• Limited Native Feature Access: Wrappers struggle to utilize advanced device features like sensors, facial recognition, or background tasks.
• Unreliable Plugins: Dependence on third-party plugins can lead to bugs, maintenance issues, and compatibility problems.
• Preview vs. Production Discrepancies: Apps may behave differently in live environments, leading to unexpected issues.
• UI/UX Rebuilds: Creating a polished, native-like experience often requires additional work beyond simply wrapping a website.
• Core Logic Constraints: Business logic tied to the website limits flexibility in app functionality.
• Frequent Re-wrapping: Updates to branding or structure require rebuilding and resubmitting the app to stores.
• Integration Issues: Compatibility with third-party tools and APIs can be problematic.
• Platform Lock-in: Relying on wrapper platforms can create high switching costs and dependency on vendor updates.

Quick Comparison

Factor	Wrapper Apps	Native Apps
Performance	Moderate; slower due to WebView overhead	High; optimized for speed and smooth execution
Native Feature Access	Limited; relies on plugins	Full access to all device features
App Store Compliance	Risk of rejection for resembling a website	Low rejection risk
Maintenance	Easier; updates reflect automatically	Requires separate codebases and frequent updates
Scalability	Struggles with high traffic or complex workflows	Handles complexity efficiently
Cost	Low; significantly cheaper to develop and maintain	High; requires larger budgets

Wrappers work well for quick, low-cost projects, but they fall short for apps needing deep functionality, advanced features, or scalability. Native app builders like Adalo bridge this gap—offering the speed of visual development with the performance of native compilation.

1. Slower Performance Through WebView

Performance Impact

WebView wrappers often lead to noticeable lag because they rely on loading remote content, which inherently takes more time. This delay can create a ripple effect, amplifying other performance issues.

For instance, a major airline reported a 2–3 second delay in performance due to this remote content loading. Considering that users spend about 90% of their mobile media time in apps rather than mobile browsers, those extra seconds can feel like an eternity.

The root of these delays lies in the difference between how native apps and WebView-based apps operate. Native apps, built with compiled languages like Swift or Kotlin, are optimized for speed. In contrast, WebViews depend on interpreted JavaScript, which is inherently slower. Preston Gralla from Computerworld highlighted that the performance of games and graphics in WebView apps falls short when compared to native apps.

Rendering is another area where WebViews struggle. Complex UI elements such as CSS gradients, drop shadows, and transparency often lack hardware acceleration. This results in choppy scrolling and stuttering animations. Additionally, the JavaScript-to-native API bridge introduces further delays, especially for tasks requiring frequent updates, like processing sensor data or handling intricate animations.

The Native Alternative

Adalo's approach sidesteps these WebView limitations entirely. Rather than wrapping web content, the platform compiles to native iOS and Android code. The result is 3-4x faster performance compared to wrapper-based solutions, with smooth animations and responsive interfaces that users expect from native apps.

This performance advantage becomes even more pronounced at scale. While wrapper apps often slow down as user bases grow, Adalo's modular infrastructure maintains consistent speed regardless of traffic levels. Apps built on the platform process over 20 million data requests daily with 99%+ uptime—performance that WebView wrappers simply cannot match.

2. App Store Rejection Risk

When creating wrapped apps, there's a significant risk of rejection from Apple or Google if the app doesn't meet their minimum functionality guidelines. One of the most common reasons for rejection is Apple's Guideline 4.2, which specifically targets apps that come across as little more than repackaged websites. Apple explicitly states:

"Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website. If your app is not particularly useful, unique, or 'app-like,' it doesn't belong on the App Store." – Apple App Store Review Guidelines

Apps that rely heavily on web-based elements like loading bars, hamburger menus instead of native tabs, or generic offline screens are often flagged by reviewers for lacking a true "app-like" experience.

But the challenge doesn't stop at getting initial approval. Even if your app passes the 24 to 48-hour review process, it remains at risk of removal later on. Apps can be delisted if they fail to stay compatible with the latest OS updates or rely on outdated technologies. This ongoing risk makes it essential to design apps that align with store requirements from the start.

Meeting Store Requirements

To lower rejection chances, focus on integrating native features like iOS tab bars or Android side drawers, push notifications, biometric logins (Face ID/Touch ID), and branded offline screens with retry options. Without these elements, your app may be flagged under Guideline 4.2.2 as nothing more than a basic web clipping.

Adalo addresses this challenge by generating true native apps rather than wrapped websites. Because the platform compiles to native code, apps built with it include proper navigation elements, native UI components, and genuine app functionality that meets Apple and Google's requirements. The platform handles the complex App Store submission process, including certificates, provisioning profiles, and store guidelines—often the hardest part of launching a new app.

3. Limited Access to Native Device Features

Native Feature Accessibility

Mobile app wrappers often fall short when it comes to tapping into critical hardware and system-level features. Unlike native apps, wrappers rely heavily on plugins or APIs to bridge the gap between web-based code and native device functionality. Unfortunately, this reliance creates limitations, leaving some native features completely inaccessible.

The list of features that wrappers struggle to support is quite long. For instance, they typically can't interact with Android Widgets, Device Administration APIs, or PrintManager APIs. More advanced capabilities, such as running background tasks, integrating with sensors, leveraging facial recognition, or achieving deep system integrations, are either challenging or outright unsupported. These restrictions not only limit what the app can do but also have a direct impact on its performance.

Performance Impact

The performance trade-offs of using wrappers are hard to ignore. The extra layer wrappers use to communicate with device hardware adds noticeable overhead, especially when it comes to graphics rendering and handling complex animations. Native apps, by contrast, enjoy direct access to the GPU, enabling smoother visuals and higher performance. Wrappers, however, must route these requests through an additional rendering layer, which slows things down.

This performance gap is even more pronounced when offline functionality is considered. Many apps built with wrappers depend on a constant internet connection and lack a proper offline mode unless developers specifically implement local caching. Native apps, on the other hand, are designed to store files locally, allowing them to function seamlessly without internet access. Interestingly, a study revealed that about 86% of Android apps utilize WebViews, which further highlights the challenges of relying on wrappers.

Maintenance Complexity

Even when wrappers manage to access native features through plugins, the development process becomes significantly more complicated. Developers must manually handle platform-specific delegate methods for tasks like navigation, loading, error handling, and managing permission requests. Max Lynch, CEO and Co-founder of Ionic, sheds light on this challenge:

"With iOS and Android Web Views, handling delegate methods for navigation, load, errors, permission requests, and other general housekeeping all need to be built manually".

This manual effort can quickly turn into a time-intensive process, often requiring weeks of development and testing for each platform. What might seem like a straightforward integration can morph into a complex and resource-heavy project.

A Different Approach to Native Features

Adalo-built apps have direct access to essential native device features including GPS, push notifications, camera, and more. Because the platform creates native components rather than relying on plugin bridges, these features work reliably and perform consistently. The AI-assisted building process—including Magic Start for generating app foundations and Magic Add for adding features through natural language—makes incorporating native functionality straightforward even for non-technical builders.

4. Unreliable Plugins and Extensions

Performance Impact

Plugins that act as bridges between web and native code can sometimes drag down performance, especially when they aren't optimized. This can lead to noticeable delays, particularly on older devices or when processing complex content. One common issue arises when plugins pull content from remote servers rather than loading it locally. If the connection is unstable or the plugin isn't efficient at handling data, this can add 2–3 seconds of loading time—a frustrating delay for users.

Maintenance Complexity

The challenges with unreliable plugins don't end after launch. In older frameworks like Cordova, plugin compatibility can be inconsistent—some plugins might work seamlessly, while others create debugging nightmares. This inconsistency often leads to manual patching, which slows down updates and increases costs. The result? A maintenance process that's far more time-consuming and expensive than expected.

Scalability and Long-Term Flexibility

The problems caused by unreliable plugins don't just affect short-term maintenance—they can also jeopardize an app's ability to scale and adapt over time. For example, Cordova, a framework now mostly in maintenance mode, has a declining plugin ecosystem, which makes it increasingly risky to rely on. Over time, as mobile operating systems evolve, outdated plugins can cause features to break.

A common example is when plugins misuse system intents, such as incorrectly implementing ACTION_GET_CONTENT for image selection. This can result in broken functionality for accessing the camera or gallery. Even worse, some plugins attempt to load unsupported libraries or unwrapped Java code, causing the app to crash at runtime. These issues create a fragile foundation, where an app that works fine today might fail completely tomorrow due to fragmented support and outdated dependencies.

Building Without Plugin Dependencies

Adalo's architecture eliminates many plugin-related headaches by building native functionality directly into the platform. Rather than relying on third-party bridges that may become outdated or incompatible, the platform's native compilation ensures consistent behavior across iOS and Android. The X-Ray feature proactively identifies performance issues before they affect users, catching potential problems that plugin-dependent apps often miss until production.

5. Different Behavior in Preview vs. Production

Performance Impact

Preview environments often benefit from high-speed local networks, which can mask delays that become glaringly obvious in production. When content loads remotely in production, users with slower or unstable internet connections may face noticeable lags. These delays, which seem trivial in preview, can lead to frustrating experiences like blank screens or browser-style loading indicators for users in real-world conditions.

Another issue arises during release builds, where Android's AAPT2 tool might obfuscate asset paths. This can result in assets failing to load properly in production, even if they worked seamlessly during preview. These discrepancies highlight the challenges of ensuring a smooth transition between environments, especially when native features come into play.

Native Feature Accessibility

In browser-based preview environments, features like GPS, cameras, or biometric sensors (e.g., Face ID or Touch ID) are often simulated using web stubs. However, in production, these features rely on actual app permissions and native bridges, which may not always be properly configured in your app wrapper. This makes managing permissions and accessing native features a tricky task that requires manual intervention.

APIs also behave differently between preview and production. For instance, some APIs—such as Google Play services, hidden Android APIs, or specific SQLite database setups—may not be supported by app wrappers. While your app might function well in a controlled preview, it could encounter issues like "undefined behavior" or even data leaks when deployed live. Vivek Mano, Director and Product Specialist at Ionic, explains:

"Developers have to learn two different APIs, iOS WKWebView and Android WebView. On top of that, development teams have to account for various mobile OS versions".

Maintenance Complexity

The gap between preview and production environments also adds to the maintenance burden. Communication bridges between web and native layers might work perfectly in controlled preview settings but fail under the stress of production loads or on specific devices. Additionally, iOS and Android use different WebView engines, which handle navigation, errors, and permission requests in unique ways. This means that behavior appearing consistent in a unified preview environment can vary significantly once the app is live.

Managing these inconsistencies requires ongoing effort to ensure a reliable user experience across different platforms and conditions.

Consistent Behavior Across Environments

Adalo's visual builder—described by users as "as easy as PowerPoint"—provides a more predictable development experience. Because the platform compiles to native code rather than wrapping web content, the gap between preview and production behavior is significantly smaller. What you see in the builder closely matches what users experience in the published app, reducing the debugging cycles that plague wrapper-based development.

6. Full UI/UX Rebuild Required

Maintenance Complexity

When you decide to wrap a website in a mobile app container, you're essentially committing to maintaining two separate entities: the website and the wrapper itself. This approach doubles your workload for development and testing tasks. Things get even trickier when Apple or Google roll out operating system updates, as these can disrupt existing functionality, requiring immediate fixes.

To add to the challenge, iOS and Android rely on different WebView engines—WKWebView for iOS and WebView for Android—forcing developers to learn and manage two separate APIs. On top of that, you'll need to consider compatibility across various versions of mobile operating systems. This dual maintenance not only complicates your workflow but also amplifies performance challenges.

Performance Impact

Relying on remote loading of web content introduces noticeable delays—typically around 2–3 seconds. To counteract this, developers often have to create custom splash screens, loading spinners, and error states like "No Internet" messages with retry options. Without these measures, users might face browser-like loading bars or blank screens, which can feel clunky and detract from the app's professionalism.

Unlike websites, mobile apps are expected to deliver seamless screen transitions and smooth interactions, which means developers must go the extra mile to create native-like experiences. These immediate performance issues can also place limits on your app's ability to scale effectively in the future.

Scalability and Long-Term Flexibility

Apple's Guideline 4.2 explicitly rejects apps that are essentially "lazy wrappers"—those that simply mirror a website without offering any native functionality. To meet Apple's standards, you'll need to incorporate native navigation elements such as tab bars, persistent headers, and smooth transitions that go beyond basic web clipping. Apple puts it plainly:

"Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website. If your app is not particularly useful, unique, or 'app-like,' it doesn't belong on the App Store."

Adhering to these native UI/UX requirements increases the development workload and limits your flexibility in the long run. As your app grows more complex, performance can degrade, especially when dealing with large databases or heavy user traffic. Additionally, wrapping your app locks you into a specific platform ecosystem, making it much harder to pivot to other solutions if your needs change down the line.

One Build, Three Platforms

Adalo eliminates the dual-maintenance problem by creating one version that works across web, iOS, and Android. Changes made in the visual builder automatically apply to all three platforms, and updates can be pushed to live apps without the repeated re-wrapping cycles that wrapper solutions require. This single-codebase approach dramatically reduces maintenance overhead while ensuring consistent user experiences across devices.

7. Cannot Modify Core Business Logic

Native Feature Accessibility

Mobile app wrappers essentially display your website within an app container. Since the business logic resides on the website itself, any updates to data processing or business rules need to be made directly on the source website.

This setup becomes tricky when native device features come into play. Standard WebViews don't naturally provide access to features like GPS, accelerometers, or biometric authentication (like Face ID) unless you add specific native plugins. These plugins act as a bridge, enabling the app to interact with native features, but they don't change the core web-based business logic. This separation often leads to maintenance headaches down the road.

Maintenance Complexity

Using a shared codebase ensures that updates are automatically applied across platforms, but it also locks the app into a fixed business logic structure. Developers are left juggling two separate APIs—iOS WKWebView and Android WebView—while accounting for different operating system versions. This adds another layer of difficulty when trying to tweak or expand core business rules on the native side.

David Cost, VP of eCommerce and Marketing at Rainbow Shops, explains the dilemma: "If we had unlimited time and money, we would probably go for a custom native app, but that is half a million to a million a year to maintain".

While wrappers can drastically cut initial costs, they often create technical debt whenever the web and native components need to interact.

Scalability and Long-Term Flexibility

Wrapped apps often struggle with high data loads, complex workflows, or heavy traffic because WebView containers aren't as efficient as native code when handling demanding tasks. Additionally, most wrappers require a steady internet connection, making them unsuitable for use cases that rely on offline functionality or local data processing. If you ever need to migrate your website, you might even face the daunting task of completely rebuilding the app.

Flexible Business Logic Without Code

Adalo takes a fundamentally different approach by letting you build business logic directly within the app builder. Magic Add allows you to describe features in natural language—"add a booking system that sends confirmation emails"—and the platform generates the necessary database structures, screens, and workflows. This flexibility means your app's logic isn't tied to an external website, and you can modify functionality without touching code or rebuilding from scratch.

The platform's database capabilities support this flexibility with no record limits on paid plans. Unlike wrapper solutions that struggle under data load, Adalo's modular infrastructure handles complex workflows efficiently, scaling to support apps with over 1 million monthly active users.

8. Repeated Re-wrapping After Updates

Maintenance Complexity

Making updates to app branding or structure isn't as straightforward as it might seem. Unlike website content updates that can roll out automatically, changes to wrapped apps require a full rebuild. This means manually re-wrapping the app and redistributing it through both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store.

The process becomes even more challenging when developers need to manage the technical intricacies of both iOS and Android WebView APIs. Max Lynch, CEO and co-founder of Ionic, sheds light on this complexity:

"With iOS and Android Web Views, handling delegate methods for navigation, load, errors, permission requests, and other general housekeeping all need to be built manually".

This repetitive re-wrapping process adds to the workload, amplifying the maintenance challenges already discussed earlier.

OS Compatibility and Security

Mobile operating systems are constantly evolving, and your wrapped app must evolve with them. To maintain compatibility, address security concerns, and leverage new platform features, developers often need to re-wrap and redistribute the app on a monthly basis. This creates a never-ending maintenance cycle, one that many teams don't fully anticipate when opting for a wrapper solution.

Changes in build tools can further complicate this process. For instance, updates to the Android Gradle plugin have been known to obfuscate XML files, requiring developers to find workarounds or even downgrade their tools. Additionally, some wrapper technologies don't support direct upgrades between versions. Moving from Generation 1 to Generation 2 wrappers, for example, might necessitate completely rebuilding the app package from scratch.

Scalability and Long-Term Flexibility

Your ability to adopt new native features is often tied to the update schedule of your wrapper provider. This dependency can be a significant limitation. If Apple or Google introduces a new native API, you won't be able to use it until the wrapper vendor updates their platform—and you'll need to re-wrap your app again. This reliance on the provider's roadmap can slow your ability to adapt to market changes, potentially affecting your competitive edge.

Unlimited Updates Without Re-wrapping

Adalo's approach eliminates the re-wrapping cycle entirely. Once your app is published to the App Store and Play Store, you can push updates directly without rebuilding the entire package. The platform includes unlimited app store publishing and updates on all plans—no additional charges for pushing changes to your live apps. This means branding updates, new features, and bug fixes can reach users quickly without the manual rebuild process that wrapper solutions require.

9. Integration Compatibility Problems

Native Feature Accessibility

Getting third-party services to work within a wrapper can be a headache. Many standard APIs that developers count on just don't function in wrapped environments. For instance, Google Play services, Google Analytics APIs, and even security features like android.security.KeyChain often hit roadblocks. Beyond that, basic tools like embedded SQLite, Android widgets, and Device Administration APIs frequently fail to operate as intended.

The issue boils down to how wrappers depend on plugins to bridge the gap between web content and native device features. Unfortunately, these plugins are not as efficient or reliable as native APIs. Over time, they can become unstable or even lose support altogether. These limitations only add to the broader challenges developers face when using mobile app wrappers.

Maintenance Complexity

The struggle doesn't stop with integration. Keeping these custom connections functional is another uphill battle. Developers have to manually manage the communication layer between web content and the native container. This includes juggling two separate APIs—iOS WKWebView and Android WebView—while also staying on top of updates for different mobile operating system versions.

To make things worse, updates to external tools can break the wrapper's functionality. A good example is when the Android Gradle plugin version 4.2+ introduced a new resource compiler. This change obfuscated XML files, forcing developers to come up with specific workarounds just to keep wrapped apps running smoothly.

Performance Impact

These integration and maintenance challenges don't just make development harder—they also hurt app performance. WebViews rely on loading remote content, which introduces network delays that native apps don't have to deal with. One major airline learned this the hard way when their custom WebView caused a 2–3 second lag because content had to be fetched from a remote server. For users with poor network connections, these delays become even more noticeable, turning a minor inconvenience into a frustrating experience. Native apps, by contrast, avoid these pitfalls entirely.

Seamless Third-Party Integrations

Adalo's marketplace includes pre-built integrations for common services, and the platform supports custom API connections for specialized needs. Because these integrations work at the native level rather than through WebView bridges, they perform reliably and don't suffer from the compatibility issues that plague wrapper-based apps. For teams that rely on spreadsheet data, Sheetbridge turns a Google Sheet into an actual database—the easiest way to manage data without learning database concepts.

10. Platform Lock-in and High Switching Costs

Platform lock-in brings along long-term expenses and operational headaches, adding to the challenges already discussed.

Dependency on Vendor Roadmaps

When you rely on wrapper platforms, you essentially hand over control of technical updates, operating system compatibility, and security patches to the vendor. If the vendor decides to raise prices, stop offering the service, or halt updates, your options become severely limited. Unlike native apps, where you own the codebase, wrapper users are stuck waiting for the platform to catch up with new iOS or Android features before they can implement them.

"The mistake many brands make is choosing a platform that gets them to launch, then disappears. They're stuck handling issues in-house (or worse, ignoring them)."

• Andrew Buck, MobiLoud

This dependency becomes even more problematic when the platform's limitations start to hinder your growth.

Scalability and Long-Term Flexibility

The true cost of platform lock-in emerges as your business begins to outgrow the wrapper's capabilities. Custom integrations, especially those not natively supported, can turn into expensive and time-consuming obstacles. Template-based builders also limit your ability to customize designs and differentiate your brand over time. This leaves you with a tough decision: live with the platform's constraints or invest in a costly rebuild. Either way, the inability to scale effectively adds another layer of risk to vendor lock-in.

Maintenance Complexity

Moving from a wrapper platform to a native app isn't a simple upgrade—it's a complete rebuild. The fundamental difference in codebases (web-based versus platform-specific languages) means starting from scratch. On top of that, native app development and upkeep come with a hefty price tag, often ranging from $500,000 to $1,000,000 annually for some businesses.

While wrapper platforms might seem like a cost-effective choice upfront, the long-term reality can be far more expensive. When your business outgrows the platform's capabilities, rebuilding a native app could cost anywhere from $20,000 to $300,000. What initially feels like savings can quickly turn into a significant financial burden.

Scalability Without Lock-in

Adalo's modular infrastructure scales to serve apps with millions of monthly active users, with no upper ceiling. This means you're unlikely to outgrow the platform's capabilities as your business expands. The platform's pricing model—starting at $36/month with unlimited usage and no record caps—provides predictable costs without the bill shock that usage-based platforms create.

Unlike wrapper solutions where switching means a complete rebuild, Adalo's native compilation means you're building on a foundation designed for long-term growth rather than quick-and-dirty deployment.

Comparison Table

Here's a quick snapshot of the key differences between wrapper-based apps, native app development, and AI-powered native builders like Adalo:

Factor	Wrapper Apps	Traditional Native Development	Adalo (AI-Powered Native)
Performance	Moderate; sluggish on older devices due to WebView overhead	High; smooth animations and fast execution	High; 3-4x faster than wrappers, native compilation
Native Feature Access	Limited; relies on plugins or bridges	Full access to all hardware features	Full access to essential features (GPS, push, camera)
App Store Compliance	Risk of rejection for resembling a website	Minimal risk; adheres to platform guidelines	Minimal risk; generates true native apps
Maintenance Needs	Low initially; re-wrapping required for updates	High; separate codebases for iOS and Android	Low; one codebase, unlimited updates included
Scalability	Limited; struggles with high traffic	High; handles complexity efficiently	High; 1M+ MAU, no record limits on paid plans
Development Cost	Low; $45-99/month for basic plans	High; $40,000-$60,000+ for basic apps	Low; starts at $36/month, unlimited usage
Database Limits	Varies; often tied to web hosting	None; custom infrastructure	None; unlimited records on paid plans

When it comes to costs, the gap is striking. Wrapper apps can start as low as $45 per month for basic plans, while maintaining a traditional native app can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 annually for some businesses. Adalo bridges this gap at $36/month with no usage-based charges—you get native app performance without native app development costs.

How Adalo Compares to Other Platforms

Several platforms compete in the app building space, each with distinct trade-offs:

Bubble offers extensive customization for web apps, but their mobile solution is a wrapper for the web app—introducing the same challenges discussed throughout this article. Pricing starts at $59/month with usage-based charges (Workload Units) that can create unpredictable bills. The platform's flexibility often results in slower applications that struggle under increased load, frequently requiring hired experts to optimize. Claims of millions of MAU are typically only achievable with significant expert assistance. Bubble's approach also means one app version doesn't automatically update web, Android, and iOS apps deployed to their respective stores.

FlutterFlow targets technical users with a "low-code" rather than "no-code" approach. Users need to set up and manage their own external database, which requires significant learning complexity—especially when optimizing for scale, as suboptimal setup creates performance problems. This ecosystem is rich with consultants because so many users need help, often spending significant sums chasing scalability. Their builder limits view to 2 screens at once (Adalo can display up to 400 screens on one canvas), and pricing starts at $70/month per user for app store publishing—still without including database costs.

Glide excels at spreadsheet-based apps with fast deployment, but restricts users to set templates that create generic, simplistic apps with limited creative freedom. Pricing starts at $60/month for custom domains, but includes limits on app updates and data rows that attract additional charges. Critically, Glide does not support Apple App Store or Google Play Store publishing.

Softr focuses on spreadsheet app building for web, with pricing starting at $167/month for Progressive Web Apps—still restricted by records per app and datasource. Softr does not support iOS and Android app creation or app store publishing.

Thunkable offers AI-drafted app builds, but Progressive Web App publishing requires a $59/month plan with usage restrictions. Responsive apps require custom pricing beyond their advertised $189/month Advanced tier.

In short, native apps offer unparalleled performance and full access to features, but at a steep price in terms of development and upkeep. Wrapper apps provide a quicker, budget-friendly solution, though they come with limitations in scalability and performance. AI-powered native builders like Adalo offer a middle path—native performance with visual development speed.

Conclusion

Mobile app wrappers come with a mix of advantages and challenges that developers need to weigh carefully. We've outlined ten key limitations—ranging from slower WebView performance and potential App Store rejections to limited access to native features, unreliable plugins, and the risk of being locked into specific platforms. These issues can become major obstacles if not addressed early on.

That said, wrappers can be a smart choice for certain scenarios. They're particularly useful for launching MVPs, building content-focused apps, creating internal tools, or quickly setting up a mobile eCommerce solution. For many businesses, the high costs of traditional native app development may simply not make sense.

The decision boils down to balancing your app's needs against these limitations. If your app requires deep hardware integration, complex offline capabilities, or highly customized UI designs, a wrapper likely won't meet your needs. However, if you already have a well-functioning mobile website and want to add features like push notifications, boost user engagement, and reach app store audiences without starting from scratch, wrappers can help you get there in weeks rather than months.

It's also crucial to address the limitations we've discussed earlier. Make sure your mobile site is responsive, fast, and optimized for conversions since the app will mirror its performance. Identify the device features your app requires and confirm they're supported by available plugins. Additionally, include native navigation elements like tab bars and splash screens to avoid rejection under Apple's Guideline 4.2.

For teams that need native app performance without traditional development costs, AI-powered native builders offer a compelling alternative. Adalo creates true native iOS and Android apps from a single codebase, avoiding the WebView limitations that constrain wrapper solutions while maintaining the speed and accessibility of visual development.

Ultimately, your choice depends on your timeline, budget, and long-term goals. Wrappers can provide a practical solution for many projects, but they work best when you fully understand their strengths and weaknesses—and when you've considered whether a native alternative might better serve your needs.

Related Blog Posts

• How to Get a Vibe-Coded App to the Apple App Store
• How Hard Is It To Publish To the App Stores? And Maintain The Apps?
• Native App Builders Vs Wrappers: What Is The Difference?
• What is a Mobile App Wrapper?

FAQ

Question	Answer
Why choose Adalo over other app building solutions?	Adalo is an AI-powered app builder that creates true native iOS and Android apps. Unlike web wrappers that risk rejection and performance issues, it compiles to native code and publishes directly to both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store from a single codebase—the hardest part of launching an app handled automatically.
What's the fastest way to build and publish an app to the App Store?	Adalo's drag-and-drop interface and AI-assisted building let you go from idea to published app in days rather than months. Magic Start generates complete app foundations from descriptions, and the platform handles the complex App Store submission process—certificates, provisioning profiles, and store guidelines included.
How do wrapper apps compare to native apps for performance?	WebView wrappers add 2-3 seconds of load time compared to native apps due to remote content loading and JavaScript interpretation overhead. Native apps built with compiled code deliver smooth animations and responsive interfaces. Adalo's native compilation is 3-4x faster than wrapper-based solutions.
Will my app get rejected from the App Store if I use a wrapper?	Apps that resemble basic websites risk rejection under Apple's Guideline 4.2, which requires apps to include features that "elevate it beyond a repackaged website." Adalo generates true native apps with proper navigation elements and native UI components that meet Apple and Google's requirements.
Which is more affordable, Adalo or Bubble?	Adalo starts at $36/month with unlimited usage and no record caps. Bubble starts at $59/month with usage-based Workload Unit charges that can create unpredictable bills. Bubble's mobile solution is also a wrapper, introducing the performance and compliance challenges discussed in this article.
Which is easier for beginners, Adalo or FlutterFlow?	Adalo is designed for non-technical users with a visual builder described as "easy as PowerPoint." FlutterFlow is "low-code" rather than "no-code," targeting technical users who must also set up and manage their own external database—significant learning complexity that often requires hiring experts.
Is Adalo better than Glide for mobile apps?	For true mobile apps, yes. Glide does not support Apple App Store or Google Play Store publishing—it creates web apps only. Adalo publishes native iOS and Android apps to both stores from a single codebase, with unlimited updates included on all plans.
Can Adalo apps scale to handle large user bases?	Yes. Adalo's modular infrastructure scales to serve apps with over 1 million monthly active users, with no upper ceiling. Paid plans include unlimited database records—no data caps that force expensive upgrades as your app grows.
How does Adalo handle app updates compared to wrapper solutions?	Wrapper apps require full rebuilds and resubmission for branding or structural changes. Adalo lets you push updates directly to published apps without rebuilding—unlimited app store updates are included on all plans, so changes reach users quickly.
Can I migrate from a wrapper platform to Adalo?	Yes, though it requires rebuilding your app since wrapper codebases (web-based) differ fundamentally from native apps. Adalo's Magic Start can generate a complete app foundation from a description of your existing app, significantly accelerating the migration process compared to traditional native development.