Adalo is the smallest of the significant no code app builders and it has built the most complete curriculum, which is not the pattern you would expect. Seventy or more courses across six categories, and the categories are the interesting part. Introduction to Apps, Strategy and Business, Design, Build, Launch and Iterate, and a dedicated track for freelancers and agencies. Almost every competitor teaches building and stops.
Adalo teaches what happens before and after, and that is where most no code projects actually die. The launch material is the standout because it takes app store submission seriously. Getting a no code app through Apple's review is a genuine obstacle, the rejection reasons are specific and often unintuitive, and a first time submitter without guidance will bounce repeatedly and frequently give up. Covering that properly is a real service and it is the single most valuable thing in the library.
The agency and freelancer track is similarly practical, dealing with scoping, pricing and client work, which is how a large share of this platform's serious users actually make money. On the product side, removing usage based app action billing in February 2025 in favour of unlimited actions on paid tiers was a genuine improvement, because metered actions made costs unpredictable in exactly the way that stops people building anything ambitious. Adalo 3.0 followed in late 2025 as an infrastructure rewrite aimed at performance. That last point leads to my main criticism.
Adalo apps have historically been slow, and performance is the most common complaint from people who have shipped something real on it. The curriculum does not engage with this. There is no honest discussion of where the platform's ceiling sits, what kinds of app it suits, what data volumes or interaction patterns will cause trouble, or how to structure things to stay on the right side of that line. A student can complete seventy courses, build something, launch it, and only then discover that the experience is not good enough to retain users.
Teaching people the constraints of your own tool is uncomfortable and it is exactly what separates education from marketing. The design material is also more generic than it should be, covering layout and colour without engaging much with the platform conventions that make an app feel native on iOS or Android, which matters for user trust. And there is nothing about the exit, about what you do when an app works well enough that the platform becomes the limitation. The durability question is worth holding in mind too, as the smallest player in a category with much better funded competitors, and reports of ownership changes are hard to verify from primary sources.
Three point three. Unusually complete and genuinely useful teaching that covers the business of shipping software, marked down for never being straight about what the platform cannot do.