Stacker

Name: Stacker
Brand: Stacker
Rating: 4.5 (58 reviews)

We're on a mission to change how software is made.

Est 2018|Valuation $101.7M|Raised $23.1M|17 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 7K|Website|Web traffic 27K|FTEs 22|HQ London, England, GB

MarketsLow-Code Development Platforms

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Stacker vs. Softr: Softr explicitly positions itself as an alternative and cites differences in data model, workflows, and layout flexibility. These are competitive framing but align with some user feedback about differentiation and flexibility.
Stacker vs. Noloco: Reviewer reports include instances of switching from Stacker to Noloco after launch due to perceived flexibility limitations.
Stacker vs. Bubble: Bubble generally provides greater flexibility at the cost of higher complexity and a longer time-to-deliver for non-technical teams.

- **Stacker vs. Softr:** Softr explicitly positions itself as an alternative and cites differences in data model, workflows, and layout flexibility. These are competitive framing but align with some user feedback about differentiation and flexibility. - **Stacker vs. Noloco:** Reviewer reports include instances of switching from Stacker to Noloco after launch due to perceived flexibility limitations. - **Stacker vs. Bubble:** Bubble generally provides greater flexibility at the cost of higher complexity and a longer time-to-deliver for non-technical teams.

Adoption trends

Public review footprint is mixed: moderate presence on some review platforms, and minimal or limited presence on others. This does not directly indicate overall adoption but suggests a smaller public review presence relative to some larger vendors.

	Stacker	Softr	Noloco
Starting plan	Entry-level paid plan with basic app and user limits	Free tier available	Free tier available (with paid upgrades)
Primary use case	Role-based portals on structured business data; teams seeking rapid app generation with minimal developer involvement	Portals/internal tools with many templates and broader data source positioning	Client portals/internal tools with seat-based pricing and permission features
Key Strength	Permissions and portal patterns; apps can be created with minimal developer involvement	Templates and broader data source support	Clear pricing mechanics, portal orientation, record-level permissions (plan-dependent)
Key Weakness	Pricing/value complaints; perceived flexibility gaps; some concerns about product momentum	Competitive marketing may overstate capabilities; pricing can increase with scale	Pricing complexity tied to seats/rows; upgrades may be required as usage grows