Direct answer
Low-code and no-code platforms let applications be assembled largely through configuration rather than written from scratch. They fit well-understood problems with standard shapes - internal tools, forms, workflow and approvals - and fit badly where behaviour is unusual or the data model is complicated.
Low-code and no-code
No-code platforms build applications entirely through configuration. Low-code platforms allow custom code where configuration runs out. The practical difference is what happens at the boundary of what the platform anticipated.
Where the platform earns its place
The question is not whether these tools are good. It is whether the problem is shaped like the tool.
Internal tools and admin
Interfaces over data that a team uses, where the value is having it at all rather than how it is built.
Forms, workflow and approvals
Routing, states and notifications, which most platforms model directly.
Integration between systems
Moving data between services that already have connectors.
Not for unusual behaviour
Once the product needs something the platform did not anticipate, the workarounds cost more than the code would have.
Not where you need the exit
Migrating away is a rebuild. If that is likely, it is cheaper to know before starting than after.
What we will tell you
If a platform fits, it removes real work and we will recommend it. If the product is heading somewhere the platform cannot follow, we will say that before it is built rather than after, even when it means a longer engagement.
Frequently asked
This is the practice the AI work is built on
We still take this work on. If the system you are describing should also be making decisions on its own, start with the AI side.