VS-04

Cordango vs Budibase

Budibase gives you a deployment choice Cordango does not. Cordango gives you a company core Budibase does not.

Two corrections to what this page used to say. Budibase is not only self-hosted: there is a managed Budibase Cloud, so who operates the platform is a question you get to answer rather than one answered for you. And “open source” needs more precision than a checkmark. Budibase Core is GPLv3. Since April 2026 the Enterprise source is readable too, under the Business Source License, which is not an OSI open-source licence. European public-sector organisations get permanent production rights under it, and each Enterprise version converts to GPLv3 four years later.

That licensing move is serious work aimed at roughly the buyer Cordango is aimed at, and it deserves more than a table row. Where the two products part company is what exists before you start building. Budibase gives you a builder and lets you point it at data sources. Cordango gives you a company.

Fact-checked25 August 2026

Feature availability and pricing change. Every row is checked against the vendor's own current documentation, linked at the foot of this page.

Default means it is there without anyone setting it up. Available means the vendor supports it, sometimes only on a particular plan. Build or configure means it is possible and it is your work. Not a focus means the product is aimed somewhere else.

FIG.01

The short version.

Where Budibase wins
  • RUN Self-host, run on-premises, or use the managed cloud. Your call, not ours.
  • SRC Core is GPLv3, and the Enterprise source is readable under BSL
  • EU Permanent production rights for European public-sector organisations
  • CERT A free self-hosted plan, and ISO 27001 certification today
  • BUILD A mature drag-and-drop builder over data sources you already run
Where Cordango wins
  • CTX Organizations, people and teams are there before the first app
  • SAY Describe what you need rather than assembling screens
  • RBAC Rights checked below every capability rather than configured per app
  • OPS Nothing to operate, patch or upgrade
  • ASK Too complex to generate? We build it on the same core.
FIG.02

Side by side.

Cordango vs Budibase, compared across the dimensions that change the decision. Fact-checked 25 August 2026.
CordangoBudibase
Building an app by describing itDefaultthe normal way in, alongside ready-made capabilitiesNot a focusa drag-and-drop builder. We found no documented natural-language app generation.
Shared company records across every appDefaultorganizations, people and teams are there before the first appBuild or configurepoint every app at the same source, and keep it that way as apps multiply
Organisation-level identity and rolesDefaultMicrosoft and Google sign-in on every plan, SAML and SCIM higher upAvailableSSO from Premium, groups and stronger governance on Business
Authorisation inside the appDefaultenforced below the application, per entity, per field and per commandBuild or configureconfigured per app by whoever builds it
Audit across every appDefaultfield-level history produced by the runtime, nothing to modelAvailableaudit logs on Enterprise
Source you can readAvailablethe compiler and the CLI are Apache-2.0, so the part that turns a description into an app is inspectable. The platform is not.DefaultCore is GPLv3, and Enterprise source has been readable under BSL since April 2026
An OSI open-source licence for the whole productNot a focusonly the compiler and the CLI. Calling Cordango open source would be a stretch.Build or configureCore yes. Enterprise is BSL, which is not OSI open source, until each version converts to GPLv3 four years on.
Self-hosting and on-premisesNot a focusCordango is a managed service. If you have to own the infrastructure, Budibase wins this row outright.Defaultself-hosted and on-premises are first-class
Managed hostingDefaultbackups, updates and patching are oursDefaultBudibase Cloud
Who operates the platformDefaultwe do, and you cannot take it in-houseAvailableyou, or Budibase Cloud. Having the choice is the point.
German or EU data residencyDefaultGerman data centres, sub-processors publishedAvailableself-host wherever you like, or use their cloud
External assurance todayNone yetwe hold no ISO 27001, SOC 2 or C5 certification and have commissioned no external penetration test. We say so on the DPA page rather than in a footnote.DefaultISO 27001
Special rights for European public-sector bodiesNot a focusnot offered. This is a genuine Budibase advantage and it is deliberate on their part.Defaultpermanent production rights under the BSL terms
Who has to build itDefaultyou describe it, or you ask us to build it on the same coreAvailablesomebody still assembles the app, though the builder is a good one
FIG.03

The architecture difference.

Budibase’s April 2026 licensing change deserves more than a row in a table. Opening the Enterprise source under BSL, with permanent production rights for European public-sector organisations and conversion to GPLv3 after four years, is a real answer to a real sovereignty problem. If your requirement is that you can read the code and run it yourself, this comparison is over and Budibase won it.

Cordango took the opposite side of that trade on purpose. There is no instance for you to run, which means there is nothing for you to patch, and it also means you cannot bring the platform in-house if your policy changes. What arrives instead is a company that exists before the first app: organizations, people, teams and roles as platform records, with rights checked underneath every capability rather than configured inside each one.

The compiler and the CLI are Apache-2.0, so the part that turns a description into an application can be inspected on a laptop with no account. The platform is not, and we would rather write that here than let a checkmark imply otherwise.

Where Budibase winsVS-04

Budibase is the better choice when self-hosting or reading the source is mandatory rather than preferable, and it is the obvious choice for a European public-sector organisation using the rights the BSL grant gives them.

FIG.04

Which one should you pick?

Pick Budibase if

  • 01 Running it on your own infrastructure is a requirement
  • 02 Somebody needs to read the source before it holds data
  • 03 You are a European public-sector organisation
  • 04 You need an ISO 27001 certificate on file today

Pick Cordango if

  • 01 Nobody wants to operate, patch and upgrade an application platform
  • 02 The same customers and colleagues should appear in every app
  • 03 You would rather describe the app than assemble it
  • 04 German hosting is enough, and owning the servers is not the point
SRC

Where these facts come from.

What we can show you, and what we cannot. Cordango holds no ISO 27001, SOC 2 or C5 certification today, and has not commissioned an external penetration test yet. We would rather you read that here than find it in procurement. Security and permissions at Cordango, and the data processing agreement in full.

NEXT

Bring one internal app.
See what it inherits.

Bring an app you would otherwise assemble in Budibase. We will build it in the demo, on a company platform where the records, the rights and the history already exist.