Is .NET MAUI the same as Xamarin?

MAUI is the evolution of Xamarin.Forms, unified into .NET; Xamarin support ended in 2024. If you're comparing CrossFly to Xamarin, MAUI is its supported successor.

Will my app look native with MAUI or CrossFly?

MAUI maps to each platform's native controls, so it matches the OS look and accessibility — at the cost of per-platform rendering differences. CrossFly draws one consistent UI itself, trading native-widget fidelity for identical behaviour everywhere.

Is MAUI production-ready?

Yes — MAUI is LTS with .NET 10 and Microsoft has focused recent releases on quality. This comparison isn't about viability; it's about architecture and fit for JVM teams.

Why does “no Linux desktop” matter?

Many enterprises run Linux on developer workstations and servers. MAUI doesn't ship a Linux desktop target; CrossFly does, from the same Java codebase as mobile.

Which is better for a Java team?

CrossFly, since you keep Java, your libraries and your tooling. MAUI means adopting C#/.NET and writing JNI bindings to reuse any Java code.

Compare frameworks

CrossFly vs .NET MAUI

CrossFly and .NET MAUI are both single-codebase, native-binary frameworks — but they answer “how do we draw the UI?” in opposite ways. CrossFly draws every pixel itself on the GPU, so one implementation behaves the same everywhere. MAUI maps C#/XAML to each platform's native controls through “handlers,” which looks native but means one rendering path to stabilise per OS.

The short version — MAUI is the natural pick for C#/.NET shops that live on Windows and Visual Studio. CrossFly wins for JVM teams: the same Java stack, broader desktop including Linux, and one GPU-drawn UI instead of a per-platform control matrix.

1 renderer

one UI implementation, not one per OS

+ Linux

desktop that MAUI doesn't ship at all

Java

your stack — no C#/.NET re-platform

CrossFly · Java

CrossFly is an open-source (Apache 2.0) framework where you write UI and logic in plain Java and it renders on the GPU via LibGDX/OpenGL, compiling to native binaries for Desktop (Windows, macOS and Linux), Android and iOS — plus a WebGL build that runs in any modern browser — Chrome, Firefox, Safari and others. Pair it with CrossFly Sync for offline-first data.

.NET MAUI · C# / XAML

MAUI is Microsoft's open-source (MIT) evolution of Xamarin, where you write C#/XAML and it maps to native controls via handlers, targeting Android, iOS, macOS (Mac Catalyst) and Windows (WinUI 3). It's LTS with .NET 10.

The differences that actually matter

Where the native-control model helps — and where drawing your own UI wins.

01 · Difference

The same XAML renders differently per platform

The catch with .NET MAUI

Because MAUI maps to native controls, the same layout can look and behave differently across iOS and Android — padding, borders, WebView quirks, controls that break on one OS and not the other. This isn't a passing bug: MAUI's own community is building an Avalonia-based custom-rendering backend explicitly to deliver a consistent look across platforms.

With CrossFly

That custom-renderer goal is CrossFly's founding architecture. CrossFly draws its own UI on the GPU, so there's exactly one implementation to get right and it behaves the same on every screen — no per-platform surprises.

02 · Difference

Modern UI often means a paid control vendor

The catch with .NET MAUI

MAUI's built-in control set is lean; for data grids, charts, schedulers and rich editors, teams routinely license Syncfusion, Telerik or DevExpress — Microsoft itself partnered with Syncfusion to backfill controls. That's a licensing cost and a version matrix on top of your app.

With CrossFly

CrossFly renders its own widget set uniformly, so advanced components aren't gated behind a third-party vendor contract or an extra dependency to keep in sync.

03 · Difference

A Java shop has to re-platform

The catch with .NET MAUI

MAUI is C#/XAML on .NET. There's no direct way to call your Java or Kotlin code; Android interop goes through JNI and generated binding projects. Your existing JVM libraries, internal JARs and backend skills don't carry over without binding work.

With CrossFly

CrossFly is Java. Your language, libraries, build tooling, hiring pool and backend stack all carry straight over — nothing to re-platform, no bindings to maintain.

04 · Difference

Desktop is Windows-strong, Linux-absent

The catch with .NET MAUI

MAUI's Windows desktop (WinUI 3) is excellent, but macOS is Mac Catalyst only (an iPad-app layer, a subset of AppKit) and Linux desktop isn't supported at all. iOS/macOS builds also chain you to a Mac and Visual Studio — and VS 2026 removed the Mac-free Hot Restart shortcut.

With CrossFly

CrossFly covers desktop broadly — Windows, macOS and Linux — from the same Java codebase as Android, iOS and the web (Chrome, Firefox, Safari and other browsers), which matters for enterprises whose developers and servers run Linux.

Where CrossFly pulls ahead

One GPU-drawn UI that behaves identically on every target — not a native-control matrix to reconcile per OS.

Plain Java on the JVM — no re-platform to C#/.NET and no JNI bindings to touch your existing Java.

Desktop that includes Linux, alongside Windows, macOS, Android, iOS and the web in any browser.

Advanced components come from the framework, not a paid third-party control vendor.

CrossFly Sync for bidirectional offline-first data.

Where .NET MAUI is genuinely strong

A first-class C#/.NET language and the huge NuGet ecosystem.

Backed by Microsoft with an LTS release train and improving quality each version.

Genuinely native controls, look and accessibility on each platform.

Best-in-class Windows desktop via WinUI 3, plus a Blazor Hybrid option.

CrossFly vs .NET MAUI at a glance

Dimension	CrossFly	.NET MAUI
Language	Java	C# / XAML
Rendering	GPU via LibGDX/OpenGL (one implementation)	Native controls via handlers (per OS)
Cross-platform consistency	Identical by design	Varies per platform
Advanced UI	Built into the framework	Often a paid vendor (Syncfusion/Telerik/DevExpress)
Java/backend reuse	Direct (it's Java)	Via JNI bindings
Platforms	Desktop (Win/mac/Linux), Android, iOS, web (any browser)	Android, iOS, macOS (Catalyst), Windows
Linux desktop	Yes	No
Runs in the browser	Yes — Chrome, Firefox, Safari…	No — the web needs a separate Blazor project
Offline-first	CrossFly Sync (bidirectional)	Third-party libraries
Toolchain	Standard JVM build	Visual Studio + Mac for iOS/macOS
License	Open source (Apache 2.0, Core)	Open source (MIT)

Choose CrossFly when

Your team is on Java/the JVM and won't re-platform to C#/.NET.

You need consistent UI across platforms and desktop that includes Linux.

You want advanced UI without licensing a third-party control suite.

Choose .NET MAUI when

Your team already writes C#/.NET and lives in Visual Studio.

Windows desktop (WinUI 3) is a primary target.

You want genuinely native controls and the NuGet ecosystem.

The bottom line

MAUI is a strong, Microsoft-backed choice if you're a C#/.NET team centred on Windows. But its native-control model is exactly what its own community is now re-architecting for consistency — and for a JVM shop it means re-platforming to C#, licensing control vendors, and living without Linux desktop. CrossFly gives you one consistent GPU-drawn UI, broader desktop, and your Java stack intact.

CrossFly vs .NET MAUI — FAQ

Consistent UI, everywhere — in Java.

One GPU-drawn interface for Desktop (including Linux), Android, iOS and the web (Chrome, Firefox, Safari and other browsers). No per-platform control matrix, no C# re-platform.

Start building See all comparisons