5 Best Glide Alternatives and Competitors in 2026

The rise of no-code and low-code application builders has reshaped how internal tools, customer-facing apps, and lightweight software products are created. Platforms like Glide accelerated adoption by lowering technical barriers, enabling spreadsheets and databases to be turned into functional apps without traditional development cycles. According to Mendix, the global low-code/no-code market is expected to exceed $65 billion by 2027, driven largely by non-technical teams building operational software. Enterprise adoption has also increased, but with it, scrutiny around scalability, governance, and long-term maintainability. As more businesses rely on these tools beyond prototypes, architectural limitations become more visible. Glide sits squarely in this inflection point of accessibility versus control.

For existing Glide users, the decision to explore alternatives is rarely about dissatisfaction alone. It is often triggered by growth, changing workflows, or the realization that early convenience introduces long-term constraints. Teams start questioning data ownership, backend flexibility, automation depth, and the feasibility of building production-grade applications on spreadsheet-centric foundations. Choosing the right Glide alternative can materially affect operating costs, development velocity, and product longevity. This guide is designed to help buyers evaluate credible Glide competitors based on architectural fit, not surface-level features. The goal is not to replace Glide blindly, but to identify platforms that align better with evolving technical and business realities.

What are the Challenges with Glide and Why Existing Users Are Looking for Alternatives?

1. Limited Scalability Beyond Prototypes

Makers report that Glide feels great for quick prototypes but becomes restrictive once an app needs to scale to real production use.

Source:Reddit

2. Confusing Behavior With PWAs and Advanced Features

Users experimenting with Glide apps report confusion and inconsistency around Progressive Web App (PWA) behaviors, subscription logic, and certain advanced feature expectations.

Source:Reddit

3. Unreliable Customer Support and Billing Issues

Several real customers express frustration with Glide’s customer support and billing processes. In multiple Trustpilot reviews users describe situations where they paid for a plan and features did not unlock as expected, or where support responses were slow and unhelpful. One reviewer reports paying for a business plan only to have their account still show a free plan, and repeated interactions with support yielded no immediate resolution.

Source: TrustPilot

Top Glide Alternatives and Competitors in 2026

Here are the 5 best glide competitors for no-code app building in 2026

1. Emergent

2. Fliplet

3. Softr

4. AppSheet

5. Adalo

1. Emergent

Emergent is one of the best, full-stack, AI-powered vibe coding and no code platforms for building highly websites and applications. Instead of assembling apps from tables or pre-built screens, Emergent lets teams describe what they want in natural language and turns that into working software. It handles frontend, backend, logic, and deployment in a single browser-based workflow. Unlike Glide, the application is not anchored to spreadsheets or row-based logic. The output is a real software project that can grow without structural workarounds.

Key Features of Emergent

1. AI-driven full-stack app generation

Emergent uses an AI agent that builds complete applications from plain English instructions. It generates the frontend, backend services, and core logic together. This avoids the piecemeal setup common in spreadsheet-based builders. For Glide users, this removes the need to bend app behavior around tables. The result feels closer to building real software than configuring components.

2. Natural language workflow for building and iteration

Instead of clicking through complex menus, users explain changes in conversation. The system updates the app structure directly. This lowers friction when requirements change. Glide users often struggle here once logic becomes layered. Emergent keeps iteration fluid even as apps grow.

3. Production-ready architecture by default

Apps are structured with scalability in mind from the start. Data, logic, and interface are treated as separate concerns. This reduces breakage as features are added. For teams outgrowing Glide, this removes the fear of rebuilding later. The platform assumes the app will be used seriously.

4. Built-in testing and validation

Emergent supports testing as part of the build flow. Teams can validate behavior before deployment instead of discovering issues after users report them. This matters once apps are customer-facing. Glide users often rely on manual testing. Emergent makes reliability a normal step, not an afterthought.

5. End-to-end deployment inside the platform

From build to deployment, everything happens in one place. There is no handoff to external hosting or complex setup steps. This simplifies shipping and updates. For non-technical teams, it removes a common point of failure. For technical teams, it saves setup time.

Who Should Use Emergent?

1. Teams building apps that will become core products

Emergent suits teams whose apps are more than side tools. These teams care about long-term flexibility and ownership. They often hit Glide limits early. Emergent gives them room to grow without starting over.

2. Founders moving from prototype to real users

Founders who validated ideas on no-code platforms often need more control next. Emergent supports that transition without jumping straight to custom engineering. It balances speed with structure. This reduces future migration risk.

3. Operations-heavy businesses with complex workflows

Businesses running multi-step processes benefit from Emergent’s workflow depth. Logic does not have to live in external tools. This simplifies systems and reduces fragility. Glide users often reach this pain point quickly.

4. Teams comfortable thinking in systems, not screens

Emergent works best when teams think about how things should behave, not just how they look. It rewards clarity of intent. It is less about dragging components and more about defining outcomes. This suits mature teams.

Advantages vs Limitations 

Pricing

Read More About: Emergent Pricing and Plans

2. Fliplet

Fliplet is a low-code platform built primarily for organizations that need controlled, repeatable app development across teams. It focuses on assembling apps from structured components and templates rather than free-form builders. Apps are designed to follow consistent patterns, which helps enterprises manage multiple applications without chaos. Unlike Glide’s spreadsheet-first approach, Fliplet relies on defined data structures and centralized configuration. This makes it better suited for internal apps where governance and predictability matter. The platform also emphasizes mobile readiness and offline use for field teams.

Key Features of Fliplet

1. Template-driven app structure

Fliplet apps are built from predefined templates that enforce consistent layout and behavior. This reduces variation across apps created by different teams. For Glide users, this removes the trial-and-error phase of structuring screens. The trade-off is less design freedom. The benefit is predictable, repeatable builds.

2. Centralized governance and access control

Administrators can control who builds, edits, and publishes apps from a single place. This helps IT teams manage risk as usage grows. Glide users often lack this level of oversight once multiple apps exist. Fliplet makes governance a default, not an add-on. This matters in enterprise settings.

3. Data and configuration model

Fliplet uses defined schemas instead of flexible tables. Changes to data structures are deliberate rather than casual. This improves stability over time. Glide users switching here usually want fewer surprises as apps evolve. It favors reliability over speed.

4. Mobile-first and offline support

Fliplet supports offline usage with data syncing once connectivity returns. This is useful for field operations and distributed teams. Glide’s offline behavior is more limited. For teams operating outside stable networks, this can be a deciding factor.

5. Multi-app management

The platform supports managing many apps under one account. Updates, permissions, and monitoring can be handled centrally. Glide users running multiple internal tools often struggle here. Fliplet treats this as a core use case.

Who Should Use Fliplet?

1. Enterprises with IT-led app development

Organizations where IT oversees tooling benefit from Fliplet’s control model. App creation follows defined rules. Flexibility is secondary to compliance. This aligns with larger teams.

2. Companies building internal operational apps

Fliplet fits internal tools used by staff rather than customers. These apps value reliability and security over polish. Glide users often migrate here when apps become operationally critical.

3. Regulated or compliance-heavy industries

Industries with audit or security requirements prefer Fliplet’s structured approach. Permissions and access are explicit. This reduces risk. Glide can feel too loose in these environments.

4. Teams managing many similar apps

Fliplet works well when multiple apps share the same structure. It reduces duplication. Glide users managing app sprawl often look for this level of control.

Advantages vs Limitations 

Pricing

3. Softr

Softr is a no-code platform focused on building user-facing apps and portals on top of existing data sources. Instead of acting as a full backend, it works primarily as a front-end layer connected to tools like Airtable, Google Sheets, and databases. This makes it fast to launch dashboards, client portals, and internal tools without migrating data. Unlike Glide, Softr separates how data is stored from how it is presented. That gives teams more flexibility on the UI side, but also means core logic often lives elsewhere. Softr is commonly used when clean design and access control matter more than complex workflows. Glide users typically look at Softr when they want better presentation without rebuilding their data stack.

Key Features of Softr

1. Frontend-first app building

Softr focuses on how apps look and feel rather than how deeply they process logic. Screens are assembled from blocks designed for portals and dashboards. For Glide users, this often feels like a step up in visual control. The trade-off is limited backend logic inside Softr itself. It works best when complexity stays low.

2. Native connections to external data sources

Softr connects directly to tools like Airtable, Google Sheets, and databases. This avoids data duplication and speeds up setup. Glide users often appreciate not having to reshape data into platform-specific tables. However, app behavior depends heavily on the connected source. Stability is tied to those systems.

3. Built-in user authentication and access

The platform includes login, permissions, and role-based access out of the box. This makes it well suited for client and partner portals. Glide users often hit limits here as apps become more user-specific. Softr handles access cleanly for common use cases.

4. Pre-built blocks for common use cases

Softr provides ready-made blocks for lists, forms, charts, and navigation. These reduce build time and keep layouts consistent. Customization is possible within defined boundaries. When requirements exceed those limits, workarounds are needed. This reinforces Softr’s role as a speed-first tool.

5. Fast deployment and iteration

Apps can be published quickly with minimal configuration. This supports rapid rollout and feedback. Glide users switching here usually value speed and polish. Long-term scalability depends on the underlying data stack.

Who Should Use Softr?

1. Teams building client or partner portals

Softr works well for apps where users log in to view or manage data. Design and usability are strong points. Logic remains relatively simple. This fits portal-style products.

2. Non-technical teams needing clean interfaces

Marketing, operations, and service teams can build without deep technical knowledge. Changes are easy to make. This keeps reliance on engineers low. Glide users often move here for better presentation.

3. Companies with existing data systems

Teams already using Airtable or databases can layer Softr on top. This avoids re-platforming data. Softr acts as an access layer rather than a system of record. That separation is intentional.

4. Early-stage products focused on UI validation

Softr supports testing how users interact with an interface. It is well suited for early feedback. As workflows grow complex, limitations become clearer. Migration planning is important.

Advantages vs Limitations 

Pricing

4. AppSheet

AppSheet is a no-code application platform owned by Google, designed mainly for building internal, data-driven applications. It is tightly integrated with Google Workspace and Google Cloud, allowing apps to be created directly from spreadsheets, databases, and cloud data sources. Unlike Glide, which focuses on simplicity and visual assembly, AppSheet is built around logic, rules, and automation. Apps are defined by data relationships and expressions rather than screen layouts. This makes AppSheet more powerful for process-heavy workflows but less flexible in design. Glide users often evaluate AppSheet when automation and offline reliability become priorities. 

Key Features of AppSheet

1. Data-driven app generation

AppSheet builds apps directly from structured data sources like Google Sheets and databases. Screens, actions, and logic are generated from the data model. For Glide users, this feels familiar but more rigid. The benefit is consistency and predictability. The downside is less control over UI behavior.

2. Expression-based logic and automation

Business rules in AppSheet are defined using expressions that control behavior across the app. This allows conditional actions, validations, and workflow automation. Glide users often hit limits here first. AppSheet offers more depth, but it comes with a learning curve. Logic favors precision over ease.

3. Offline-first app behavior

Apps continue to work without an internet connection and sync later. This is critical for field teams and mobile workflows. Glide’s offline support is more limited. AppSheet treats offline usage as a core capability. Reliability in low-connectivity environments is a strong draw.

4. Deep Google ecosystem integration

AppSheet integrates natively with Google Workspace tools like Drive, Gmail, and BigQuery. This reduces friction for Google-centric organizations. External integrations outside Google are more constrained. The platform clearly favors users already in that ecosystem.

5. Centralized governance and monitoring

Administrators can control access, usage, and deployment from a central dashboard. This supports IT oversight across many apps. Glide users managing multiple internal tools often lack this visibility. AppSheet makes governance part of the default setup.

Who Should Use AppSheet?

1. Operations teams automating internal processes

Teams digitizing workflows benefit from AppSheet’s automation depth. These apps often replace manual or spreadsheet-based processes. Reliability matters more than design. AppSheet fits that need well.

2. Organizations standardized on Google Workspace

Companies already using Google tools integrate AppSheet easily. Authentication and data access are straightforward. This lowers adoption friction. The platform feels native in these environments.

3. Field teams working offline

Teams operating in areas with poor connectivity benefit from offline-first behavior. Data sync is handled automatically. This improves usability and trust. Glide users often switch for this reason.

4. IT-governed environments

Organizations with IT oversight prefer AppSheet’s structured approach. App creation follows defined rules. Flexibility is balanced with control. This suits larger teams.

Advantages vs Limitations 

Pricing

5. Adalo

Adalo is a no-code platform focused on helping non-technical teams build mobile and web apps with a strong emphasis on visual design. Apps are created using a drag-and-drop interface where screens, components, and actions are tightly connected. Unlike Glide’s spreadsheet-driven logic, Adalo centers the build process around screens and user interactions. It includes its own internal database to manage app data, which works well for simpler use cases. The platform is commonly used for early-stage apps and design-led concepts. Glide users often consider Adalo when they want more control over how an app looks and behaves on mobile.

Key Features of Adalo

1. Visual, component-based app builder

Adalo’s core experience revolves around assembling screens with drag-and-drop components. Actions are attached directly to buttons and interactions. This makes it easy to understand how an app behaves. For Glide users, this feels more visual and intuitive. The trade-off is tighter coupling between UI and logic.

2. Built-in database for simple data models

The platform includes an internal database to store and relate data. This removes the need for external data tools. It works well for small datasets and straightforward relationships. Glide users moving here often appreciate the simplicity. Complexity becomes harder to manage as data grows.

3. Native mobile app publishing

Adalo supports publishing apps directly to app stores. This makes it easier to ship mobile-first products without custom development. Glide users targeting mobile distribution often see this as a step forward. Performance tuning options are limited. It favors speed over optimization.

4. Action-based workflow logic

App behavior is defined through actions triggered by user events. This keeps simple flows easy to implement. More advanced logic requires creative workarounds. Glide users encounter similar limits as workflows grow. Adalo prioritizes approachability over depth.

5. Third-party integrations through automation tools

Adalo supports integrations mainly via external automation services. This extends functionality without deep native support. It adds flexibility but also dependency. Glide users will recognize this pattern. Long-term reliability depends on external tools.

Who Should Use Adalo?

1. Non-technical founders building MVPs

Adalo is well suited for founders who want to validate ideas quickly. The visual builder lowers the barrier to entry. Apps can be shipped without engineering help. Migration may be needed later.

2. Teams prioritizing mobile experience

Design-led teams benefit from Adalo’s mobile-first focus. Layout and interactions are more flexible than Glide. Logic remains secondary. This fits consumer-facing concepts.

3. Early-stage product experiments

Adalo works well for testing product ideas with real users. Iteration is fast. Structural limits appear as usage grows. Planning ahead is important.

4. Small teams with simple workflows

Teams with limited data and logic needs can operate comfortably. As requirements increase, friction becomes visible. Glide users often reach a similar point. Adalo suits early phases best.

Advantages vs Limitations 

Pricing

How to Choose the Right Glide Alternative?

1. Assess Whether Your App Is Becoming Business-Critical

The first decision is understanding whether your Glide app is evolving beyond a convenience tool. Applications that support revenue, customer experience, or core operations demand stronger architectural foundations. Platforms optimized for speed may struggle under sustained usage. Buyers should map how failure or downtime would impact the business. This clarity often eliminates several options immediately.

2. Evaluate Data Complexity and Ownership Requirements

Glide alternatives differ significantly in how they handle data modeling and control. Teams managing simple records can tolerate limitations, but relational data and validations require more structured systems. Data ownership also matters for long-term independence. Buyers should assess how easily data can be migrated or extended. This is often overlooked until it becomes a blocker.

3. Match Automation Needs to Platform Capabilities

Some platforms treat automation as a core system layer, while others rely on external tools. Buyers should list workflows that require conditional logic, approvals, or event-based triggers. If automation is central to operations, shallow workflow support creates long-term friction. Evaluating this early prevents costly re-architecture later.

4. Align Platform Complexity with Team Capability

More powerful platforms require more intentional design decisions. Teams without architectural awareness may struggle with systems that expose deeper control. Conversely, oversimplified platforms frustrate teams as complexity grows. Buyers should choose a tool that stretches capability without overwhelming it. This balance determines adoption success.

5. Consider Long-Term Cost at Scale

Entry pricing rarely reflects long-term cost. User-based pricing, data limits, and feature gating can significantly alter economics over time. Buyers should model costs at projected scale rather than current usage. This prevents reactive migrations driven by budget pressure. Cost predictability is as important as feature access.

Conclusion

Glide serves an important role in enabling fast, accessible app creation, but it is not designed to support every stage of application maturity. As teams encounter limits around data complexity, automation depth, and scalability, alternatives become necessary rather than optional. Each platform discussed reflects a different trade-off between control, speed, and operational rigor. There is no single best replacement, only better alignment with specific business realities. Teams building durable, evolving applications should prioritize architecture and ownership over initial convenience. Choosing the right Glide alternative ultimately shapes how confidently software can grow alongside the business.