Robert MacLean

Rapid Business Development: LightSwitch vs. Dynamics CRM vs. SharePoint vs. ASP.NET MVC

Published on Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Over a year ago, I wrote a post where I compared four technologies that can be used to build business applications rapidly. The original post was inspired by how similar a number of products have become over the last few years—and more importantly, how Visual Studio LightSwitch, a specialized rapid business tool development platform built on top of Visual Studio, is affecting the development ecosystem. That post was written during the LightSwitch Beta 2 timeframe, and the world has changed a lot since then—LightSwitch has shipped, not once but twice! So, it’s about time for a refresh.

As with the previous post, I’ll compare LightSwitch against Dynamics CRM, SharePoint, and ASP.NET MVC Scaffolding. If you’re not familiar with these products, see my older post for a brief overview.

I think the differences between these four are very interesting. While each has its strengths and weaknesses, this should definitely not be looked at as a "pick one only" post. There are many scenarios where you want to combine them for even better experiences.

To be clear, ASP.NET MVC (not just scaffolding) is greater than ASP.NET MVC Scaffolding—you can do almost anything with MVC. However, for this article, we’re focusing on the concept of rapid development and comparing MVC with scaffolding (which offers rapid development with trade-offs). For example, supported databases: MVC supports anything .NET does, while scaffolding is limited to a subset.

I’ve broken down the comparisons into twenty-two (!) aspects, grouped into six scenarios for easier digestion. Each scenario starts with a list of aspects, a brief description, and a comparison table. All aspects are numbered for easy scanning, and notes are linked when available.

Starting

  1. Ready to go out of the box: Can it do something after installation? Even if actual development takes longer, quick turnaround helps with prototyping, rapid development, and learning. (We’re not aligning it with company needs—just whether it works at all.)

  2. Northwind-style sample development costs: How much effort is needed to tailor it for a company (e.g., a fictional Northwind XRM system)? Fewer costs = less time/resources.

LightSwitch (LS)Dynamics CRMSharePoint 2010 (SP)ASP.NET MVCMy Notes
Aspect 1Medium(note 1)Fastest(note 2)FastSlowest(note 1)
  1. LS & MVC need development; SP requires at least 5 minutes of tailoring.
  2. CRM is ready to go post-install.
Aspect 2$(note 2)$$$$$$$(note 1)
  1. ASP.NET MVC has the highest costs due to its low out-of-the-box features.
  2. LightSwitch excels in rapid development.

Finishing

  1. Cost for on-premise deployments: Licensing expenses for running the solution internally (not including hardware/OS costs).
  2. Deployment Complexity: How difficult is it to get a solution running? Time and costs can balloon during deployment, upgrades, and troubleshooting.
  3. Deployment Documentation: Availability of guides, videos, or troubleshooting resources is critical for smooth deployments.
LightSwitch (LS)Dynamics CRMSharePoint 2010 (SP)ASP.NET MVCMy Notes
Aspect 1$$(note 2)$ to $$$$$$$ to $$$$+$$(note 2)
  1. CRM is cheap for small-scale use but scales with users.
  2. LS & MVC have upfront software costs but no per-user fees.
Aspect 2Easy(notes 1 & 2)Hard(note 1)Hardest(note 1)Easiest(notes 1 & 3)
  1. LS, CRM, and SP have increasing deployment complexity; CRM and SP are harder due to completeness.
  2. LS has a built-in deployment system.
  3. MVC is easiest—no constraints, and Web Deploy helps admins.
Aspect 3Yes(note 2)Yes(note 2)Yes(note 2)Yes(notes 1 & 2)
  1. ASP.NET MVC benefits from Web Deploy tooling and documentation.
  2. All have strong communities!

User Experience

  1. Front-end technology: How rich is the out-of-the-box UI?
  2. How good the standard UI looks: Subjective—but based on my opinion.
  3. Flexibility of the out-of-box front-end: How easy is it to adjust?
  4. Themability: Corporate branding matters. We’re focusing on out-of-the-box options (not custom front-ends).
LightSwitch (LS)Dynamics CRMSharePoint 2010 (SP)ASP.NET MVCMy Notes
Aspect 1Silverlight (HTML5 future)(note 1)Web (ASP.NET)Web (ASP.NET under the hood)ASP.NET(note 2)
  1. LS’s Silverlight future is uncertain link. HTML5 support is coming.
  2. MVC’s out-of-the-box scaffolding isn’t polished but improves in .NET 4.5.
Aspect 2Medium(note 2)Medium(note 3)Today: Low / Future: Medium(note 1)Depends on designer(note 3)
  1. SP 2010’s UI is plain today, but 2013 improves it.
  2. LS ships with two UIs: Metro and Cosmopolitan (the latter is better for business).
  3. CRM is polished; MVC depends on design skills.
Aspect 3High(note 1)Medium(note 2)Medium(note 2)High(note 1)
  1. MVC & LS offer near-limitless flexibility, especially with Silverlight.
  2. SP and CRM also support Silverlight.
Aspect 4Today: High / Future: Highest(notes 1, 2, 3)Low(note 4)Medium(note 3)Highest(note 1)
  1. MVC has the most flexibility; LS follows with strong theming. LS’s HTML client will use CSS.
  2. SP theming is possible but less powerful.
  3. CRM always looks like CRM.

Extensibility

  1. API for integration: Vital for short/medium/long-term data exchange.
  2. Marketplace: Official app stores/galleries (not public sites like CodePlex).
  3. Additional authentication: Beyond Windows/Forms-based auth (e.g., claims-based, custom).
  4. Permission structure: Flexibility in controlling access post-login.
LightSwitch (LS)Dynamics CRMSharePoint 2010 (SP)ASP.NET MVCMy Notes
Aspect 1Yes(note 2)Yes(note 3)Yes (5+ APIs)(note 3)Yes(note 1)
  1. MVC can use WebAPI or custom APIs.
  2. LS auto-generates OData services (now supports service-only deployment).
  3. CRM & SP APIs are complex.
Aspect 2Gallery(note 3)Yes(note 1)No(note 2)Gallery(note 3)
  1. CRM leads with a real marketplace.
  2. MVC has a gallery + strong third-party ecosystem.
  3. LS uses MVC’s gallery but lacks ecosystem scale.
Aspect 3Anonymous, Custom, Windows AD, Forms-based(notes)Claims-based (STS)Anonymous, Custom (e.g., Windows Live)(note)Anonymous, Custom (e.g., Windows Live)(note)LS uses ASP.NET’s authentication model.
Aspect 4Very complete(note 2)Fantastic(note 3)Good(note 3)Basic (XML-heavy)(note 1)
  1. MVC requires manual authorisation enforcement.
  2. LS has a great model + minor coding.
  3. SP’s permissions are powerful but messy; CRM enforces structure.

Information Worker Features

  1. Offline support: Laptop-focused (not tablets/mobiles).
  2. Easily import data: Out-of-the-box tools (not APIs).
  3. Printing: Even if "paperless," PDF/XPS invoicing matters.
  4. Office integration: Word, Excel, Outlook, etc.
  5. Mobile support: Beyond basic support—how well does it work?
LightSwitch (LS)Dynamics CRMSharePoint 2010 (SP)ASP.NET MVCMy Notes
Aspect 1No(notes)Yes(notes)Yes(notes)No(notes)CRM & SP offer offline via Outlook; LS/MVC do not.
Aspect 2Nope(notes)Yes (CSV)(notes)Yes (multiple)(notes)Nope(notes)CRM & SP have built-in tools; LS/MVC need extensions.
Aspect 3Nope(note 1)Yes(note 4)Yes (Poor)(note 3)Browser-level(notes 1 & 2)
  1. LS & MVC need custom dev for printing.
  2. MVC benefits from HTML.
  3. SP’s printing is weak.
  4. CRM leads in printing.
Aspect 4Low (Excel export)(notes)Medium (Excel, Word, Outlook)(notes)High (all but Publisher)(notes)None(notes)CRM & SP excel; LS needs extensions.
Aspect 5Today: Limited / Future: Fantastic(note 1)Good(note 2)Okay(note 3)Fantastic(note 4)
  1. LS’s Silverlight hurdle; HTML5 fixes this.
  2. CRM has mobile apps + API.
  3. SP has limited apps + poor HTML support.
  4. MVC 4.5 has strong mobile features.

Other

  1. Databases supported: Flexibility in data sources.
  2. Minimum skills for tailoring: How non-developers can customize.
  3. Cloud support: PaaS/SaaS options.
  4. ALM experience: Unit testing, source control, multi-dev workflows.
  5. Requires Silverlight: Only LS today (HTML5 in future).
  6. Data performance: LS sends heavy data; others assume LAN proximity.
LightSwitch (LS)Dynamics CRMSharePoint 2010 (SP)ASP.NET MVCMy Notes
Aspect 1SQL Server, SQL Azure, SharePoint, WCF RIA/OData, EF providersSQL ServerSQL Server (BDC/External Content Types)LINQ-to-SQL/Entity Framework
Aspect 2Low(note 3)Lowest(notes 1 & 3)Low(note 1)Highest(note 2)
  1. CRM & SP excel in low-skill tailoring.
  2. MVC requires dev.
  3. LS balances dev/non-dev needs.
Aspect 3PaaS (SQL Azure + Azure Websites)SaaS (cost/user/month)SaaS (Office 365)PaaS (SQL Azure + Azure Websites)
Aspect 4Medium(note 3)Low(note 3)High(note 2)Highest(note 1)
  1. MVC’s pure dev nature aligns well with ALM.
  2. SP + VS 2010/2012 is great (mocking is tricky).
  3. LS & CRM use XML customizations → source control pain.

Finally

A post like this wouldn’t exist without feedback from amazing people. Special thanks to: