ComponentOne Studio, from software company GrapeCity in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, provides Visual Studio controls.
$1,495
Per Year Per User
Firebase
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
Google offers the Firebase suite of application development tools, available free or at cost for higher degree of usages, priced flexibly accorded to features needed. The suite includes A/B testing and Crashlytics, Cloud Messaging (FCM) and in-app messaging, cloud storage and NoSQL storage (Cloud Firestore and Firestore Realtime Database), and other features supporting developers with flexible mobile application development.
C1 is great for creating custom reports. We have client apps where we've created some fairly complicated reports such as invoices and real estate inspections. We also use the True DBGrid in many of our apps since it is so customizable. Its grouping and filtering features are very nice and can provide summary counts and totals at the bottom or right side of the grid that are very handy.
Firebase should be your first choice if your platform is mobile first. Firebase's mobile platform support for client-side applications is second to none, and I cannot think of a comparable cross-platform toolkit. Firebase also integrates well with your server-side solution, meaning that you can plug Firebase into your existing app architecture with minimal effort.
Firebase lags behind on the desktop, however. Although macOS support is rapidly catching up, full Windows support is a glaring omission for most Firebase features. This means that if your platform targets Windows, you will need to implement the client functionality manually using Firebase's web APIs and wrappers, or look for another solution.
The True DBGrid control is nice for showing parent/child relationships and being able to drill down and show the child data. It also is nice for showing summary totals.
The report engine is great for building custom reports for Win Forms or web apps. It can do everything that Crystal Reports can do.
They have a good selection of controls that can do just about anything you can imagine.
Analytics wise, retention is extremely important to our app, therefore we take advantage of the cohort analysis to see the impact of our middle funnel (retargeting, push, email) efforts affect the percent of users that come back into the app. Firebase allows us to easily segment these this data and look at a running average based on certain dates.
When it comes to any mobile app, a deep linking strategy is essential to any apps success. With Firebase's Dynamic Links, we are able to share dynamic links (recognize user device) that are able to redirect to in-app content. These deep links allow users to share other deep-linked content with friends, that also have link preview assets.
Firebase allows users to effectively track events, funnels, and MAUs. With this simple event tracking feature, users can put organize these events into funnels of their main user flows (e.g., checkout flows, onboarding flows, etc.), and subsequently be able to understand where the drop-off is in the funnel and then prioritize areas of the funnel to fix. Also, MAU is important to be able to tell if you are bringing in new users and what's the active volume for each platform (Android, iOS).
Attribution and specifically multi-touch attribution could be more robust such as Branch or Appsflyer but understand this isn't Firebases bread and butter.
More parameters. Firebase allows you to track tons of events (believe it's up to 50 or so) but the parameters of the events it only allows you to track 5 which is so messily and unbelievable. So you're able to get good high-level data but if you want to get granular with the events and actions are taken on your app to get real data insight you either have to go with a paid data analytics platform or bring on someone that's an expert in SQL to go through Big Query.
City-specific data instead of just country-specific data would have been a huge plus as well.
Firebase functions are more difficult to use, there are no concepts of triggers or cascading deletes without the use of Firebase functions. Firebase functions can run forever if not written correctly and cause billing nightmares. While this hasn't happened to us specifically it is a thing that happens more than one realizes.
Our analytics folks handled the majority of the communication when it came to customer service, but as far as I was aware, the support we got was pretty good. When we had an issue, we were able to reach out and get support in a timely fashion. Firebase was easy to reach and reasonably available to assist when needed.
We have been in business since 1992, so we have used many different products over the years. The two other products we've primary used that are similar to ComponentOne, are Infragistics and Crystal Reports. Infragistics has a vast array of controls similar to ComponentOne. We use both to be honest and I'm not sure which one I would pick over the other. I guess that would depend on what you're trying to accomplish and if one had some control or capability that the other didn't. ComponentOne does have the reporting capabilities, where Infragistics does not.
Before using Firebase, we exclusively used self hosted database services. Using Firebase has allowed us to reduce reliance on single points of failure and systems that are difficult to scale. Additionally, Firebase is much easier to set up and use than any sort of self hosted database. This simplicity has allowed us to try features that we might not have based on the amount of work they required in the past.
ComponentOne allows us to add additional features to our apps that wouldn't be found in apps written with just Visual Studio itself. That allows our clients to get more creative in their requirements, which in turn, means more work and billable hours for us!
Our apps appear more professional when using ComponentOne which helps us get projects for new clients.
ComponentOne also helps us to save clients some money since we are not having to develop things that it can do from scratch.
Makes building real-time interfaces easy to do at scale with no backend involvement.
Very low pricing for small companies and green-fields projects.
Lack of support for more complicated queries needs to be managed by users and often forces strange architecture choices for data to enable it to be easily accessed.
