# Cordango vs Quickbase: custom apps with enterprise control > Quickbase has Chat-to-App, audit logs, SSO and SCIM, and Pave promises instant custom apps with enterprise control. That is close to our own pitch. Checked against Quickbase documentation. Source: https://www.cordango.com/vs/quickbase/ Language: en [Home](https://www.cordango.com/) [Compare](https://www.cordango.com/vs/) Cordango vs Quickbase # Cordango vs Quickbase Quickbase says almost exactly what we say, and has been saying it for a lot longer. This is the uncomfortable comparison, so it gets the honest treatment. Quickbase has Chat-to-App, which generates working custom applications from a description. It has security controls, audit logs, SSO and SCIM on the higher tiers, and enterprise administration built over decades of operating in regulated industries. Pave, its newer positioning, promises instant custom applications with enterprise control, which is close enough to our own sentence that we should not pretend otherwise. Where we differ is scope and opinion. Quickbase is a configurable operations platform: it will go wider than Cordango, it has more knobs, and it has a track record in places we have never been. Cordango is narrower, more opinionated, and starts from a fixed company foundation that you do not get to design. That is a real advantage only if you did not want to design one. Fact-checked 25 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. ## The short version. Where Quickbase wins - YEARS Decades of production use, including in regulated industries - CHAT Chat-to-App generates working custom applications - GOV Security controls, audit logs, SSO and SCIM on the higher tiers - WIDE A configurable operations platform that goes wider than Cordango does - PROOF Reference customers at a scale we cannot match today Where Cordango wins - CTX Organizations and people are platform records, with no app to model them in - FEWER Fewer choices. The foundation is fixed, which is the product. - EU German data centres, and we name the provider in the sub-processor list - ASK Too complex to generate? We build it on the same core. ## Side by side. Cordango vs Quickbase, compared across the dimensions that change the decision. Fact-checked 25 August 2026. | | Cordango | Quickbase | | --- | --- | --- | | Building an app by describing it | Default the normal way in, alongside ready-made capabilities | Default Chat-to-App generates working custom applications | | Shared company records across every app | Default organizations and people are platform records. There is no app that owns them. | Build or configure apps and tables can be related across a realm. Somebody decides the shape and holds it. | | Organisation-level identity and roles | Default Microsoft and Google sign-in on every plan, SAML and SCIM higher up | Available SSO and SCIM on the higher tiers | | Authorisation inside the app | Default enforced below the application, per entity, per field and per command | Available mature role and field-level controls, configured per app | | Audit across every app | Default field-level history produced by the runtime, nothing to model | Available audit logs, on the tiers that carry them | | Governance across the portfolio | Default one platform and one set of rules, because there is nothing else to govern | Default enterprise administration, built for exactly this | | How wide the platform goes | Not a focus internal operational capabilities. Cordango will not stretch as far as Quickbase does. | Default a configurable operations platform with a very wide reach | | Somebody has to run the platform | Default nobody at your company does | Build or configure realms, apps and roles are somebody’s ongoing job at any real size | | Managed hosting | Default backups, updates and patching are ours | Default fully hosted | | German or EU data residency | Default German data centres, sub-processors published | Available regional hosting options. Confirm which region applies to your contract. | | Track record at scale | Not yet Cordango is onboarding early companies a handful at a time. We have no comparable deployment to point at, and we are not going to imply otherwise. | Default decades of it, including regulated industries | | External assurance today | None yet we 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. | Default an established compliance portfolio | | Who has to build it | Default you describe it, or you ask us to build it on the same core | Available Chat-to-App lowers the bar. Larger builds still tend to want a builder. | | One contract for the whole platform | Default apps are not priced separately. The tenth capability does not add a line item. | Default one Quickbase contract, with published plans | ## The architecture difference. Quickbase is the comparison where we have least room to be clever, so here is the plain version. On features, this is close. On maturity, they are ahead and it is not close: decades of production use, regulated customers, and a compliance portfolio we do not have. The architectural difference is smaller than on any other page in this set, and it is about where the company lives. In Quickbase, a company is something you model: tables, apps, relationships and roles inside a realm, arranged well or badly depending on who arranged them. In Cordango the organizations and the people are not modelled at all, because they are platform records that a capability reads. There is no chance to arrange them badly and no chance to arrange them cleverly either. So the case for Cordango here is narrow and specific: a growing company that wants several bespoke internal capabilities, does not want to run a platform or design a data foundation, and wants German hosting. If that is not you, Quickbase is the safer answer and we would rather say so than argue. Where Quickbase wins Quickbase is the better choice when track record and compliance evidence are part of the decision, when the platform needs to stretch beyond internal operations, or when you have people who will own and configure it properly. ## Which one should you pick? ### Pick Quickbase if - 01 You need a vendor with decades of production track record - 02 Regulated industry requirements are driving the decision - 03 You want a platform that stretches wider than internal operations - 04 You have people who will configure and own it properly ### Pick Cordango if - 01 You do not want to design a company data foundation first - 02 There is no platform team, and there is not going to be one - 03 German hosting and a named sub-processor list matter in procurement - 04 You would rather have fewer choices than more SRC ## Where these facts come from. - [Quickbase plans and pricingwww.quickbase.com/plans-and-pricing](https://www.quickbase.com/plans-and-pricing) - [Quickbase Pavewww.quickbase.com/pave](https://www.quickbase.com/pave) **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](https://www.cordango.com/security/), and the [data processing agreement](https://www.cordango.com/dpa/) in full. NEXT ## Bring one process. Judge it on your own. Bring a process you are evaluating both products for. We will build it in the demo and you can decide whether a fixed company foundation and German hosting are worth more to you than a longer track record. [Book a demo →](https://www.cordango.com/contact/) [All comparisons →](https://www.cordango.com/vs/)