Cross-Platform vs Native Mobile Development: An Empirical Study of Software Quality Trade-offs

Alexandru Ilovan

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.21544

Cross-Platform vs Native Mobile Development: An Empirical Study of Software Quality Trade-offs

Alexandru Ilovan

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Cross-platform mobile frameworks promise code reuse, shorter delivery cycles, and lower implementation effort, but their trade-offs relative to native development remain difficult to assess objectively. Many comparisons rely on simplified applications, inconsistent feature sets, or a narrow set of metrics. This paper compares five implementations of the same plant-management application: native iOS, native Android, Flutter, React Native, and Kotlin Multiplatform. The shared approaches target both Android and iOS, yielding eight executable variants. Guided by ISO/IEC 25010, the study examines time behavior, implementation footprint, source-code organization, and observable rendering responsiveness. All implementations share the same domain, backend services, functional requirements, and benchmark contract. The supplied dataset contains 2,000 completed runs per variant and covers authenticated and cached retrieval, image transfer and decoding, list rendering and scrolling, local synchronization, and media upload. Backend preparation and framework-specific UI drivers are analyzed separately from the primary client workflow. Native records the lowest non-UI client subtotal on both operating systems, with Kotlin Multiplatform the closest cross-platform implementation, while operation and UI-wrapper rankings vary by task. The shared approaches contain less authored mobile source than the native applications combined, and the source inventory shows different patterns of file size, organization, and dependency use. Rather than identifying a universally superior technology, the study shows that each approach's advantages and costs depend on the quality attribute, workload, platform, and measurement boundary.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE cs.GT cs.PF

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Alexandru Ilovan. 2026-09-18. Cross-Platform vs Native Mobile Development: An Empirical Study of Software Quality Trade-offs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.21544

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Combining Type Inference and Automated Unit Test Generation for Python

Automated unit test generation is an established research field that has so far focused on statically-typed programming languages. The lack of type information in dynamically-typed programming languages, such as Python, inhibits test generators, which heavily rely on information about parameter and return types of functions to select suitable arguments when constructing test cases. Since automated test generators inherently rely on frequent execution of candidate tests, we make use of these frequent executions to address this problem by introducing type tracing, which extracts type-related information during execution and gradually refines the available type information. We implement type tracing as an extension of the Pynguin test-generation framework for Python, allowing it (i) to infer parameter types by observing how parameters are used during runtime, (ii) to record the types of values that function calls return, and (iii) to use this type information to increase code coverage. The approach leads to up to 87.8 % more branch coverage, improved mutation scores, and to type information of similar quality to that produced by other state-of-the-art type-inference tools.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in software engineering (SE) research and practice, yet their non-determinism, opaque training data, and rapidly evolving models threaten the reproducibility and replicability of empirical studies. We address this challenge through a collaborative effort of 22 researchers, presenting a taxonomy of seven study types that organizes how LLMs are used in SE research, together with eight guidelines for designing and reporting such studies. Each guideline distinguishes requirements (must) from recommendations (should) and is contextualized by the study types it applies to. Our guidelines recommend that researchers: (1) declare LLM usage and role; (2) report model versions, configurations, and customizations; (3) document the system and prompt design beyond the model; (4) report session traces, i.e., interaction logs and runtime traces; (5) use suitable baselines, benchmarks, and metrics; (6) include an open LLM as a baseline; (7) validate LLM outputs against human judgment; and (8) articulate limitations and mitigations. We complement the guidelines with an applicability matrix mapping guidelines to study types and a reporting checklist for authors and reviewers. We maintain the study types and guidelines online as a living resource for the community to use and shape (llm-guidelines$.$org).

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

MigrateLib: a tool for end-to-end Python library migration

Library migration is the process of replacing a library with a similar one in a software project. Manual library migration is time consuming and error prone, as it requires developers to understand the Application Programming Interfaces (API) of both libraries, map equivalent APIs, and perform the necessary code transformations. Due to the difficulty of the library migration process, most of the existing automated techniques and tooling stop at the API mapping stage or support a limited set of libraries and code transformations. In this paper, we develop an end-to-end solution that can automatically migrate code between any arbitrary pair of Python libraries that provide similar functionality. Due to the promising capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in code generation and transformation, we use LLMs as the primary engine for migration. Before building the tool, we first study the capabilities of LLMs for library migration on a benchmark of 321 real-world library migrations. We find that LLMs can effectively perform library migration, but some post-processing steps can further improve the performance. Based on this, we develop MigrateLib, a command line application that combines the power of LLMs, static analysis, and dynamic analysis to provide accurate library migration. We evaluate MigrateLib on 717 real-world Python applications that are not from our benchmark. We find that MigrateLib can migrate 32% of the migrations with complete correctness. Of the remaining migrations, only 14% of the migration-related changes are left for developers to fix for more than half of the projects.

cs.SE↗