Low-code + custom: when to use low-code tools in your SaaS stack (and when not to)

Low-code has become a practical part of many SaaS stacks – because time is finite and some problems don’t deserve a bespoke build. The trick is knowing where low-code creates real leverage (faster delivery, less operational load) and where it taxes you later (performance ceilings, governance gaps, vendor lock-in).

In plain terms, low-code is a visual approach to building applications and workflows that reduces the amount of hand-written code required. Most platforms use drag-and-drop builders, pre-built components and connectors to speed up delivery – often making it possible for “citizen developers” (non-software engineers) to contribute safely when governance is in place.

Gartner has repeatedly pointed to rapid adoption of low-code/no-code inside organisations, with widely repeated commentary that low-code/no-code will be used in the majority of new applications compared to earlier years.

Why this matters for SaaS teams (especially SMEs)

If you’re a UK SaaS SME, you’re likely juggling all the usual constraints at once: a small engineering team, a product roadmap that never gets shorter, security questionnaires from buyers, and sudden “we need this yesterday” requests from customer success and sales. Low-code can help – but only if it is treated like a delivery tool with boundaries, not a replacement for engineering discipline.

A helpful mental model: low-code is strongest when the work is adjacent to your core product (internal ops, back-office tooling, simple workflow automation). It becomes risky when it starts to become your core product (your differentiator, your performance bottleneck, your compliance boundary).

Where low-code shines in a SaaS stack

1) Internal tools that unblock teams quickly

Think: admin panels, support dashboards, customer-success workspaces, ops tooling, simple data review and triage. These are real business needs, but they rarely justify months of custom UI work – and they often change weekly.

Why low-code works here: the blast radius is smaller, the users are internal, and “good enough” beats “perfect” when the alternative is a backlog that never clears.

Practical examples:

• Customer success: a churn-risk dashboard that pulls billing + usage + support tickets into one view.
• Ops: a “deployment readiness” checklist app tied to your run-books and release notes.
• Finance: lightweight approvals and audit trails for spend, discounts, or contract exceptions.

2) Workflow automation and orchestration

Low-code automation is often a big win for “glue work”: synchronising systems, triggering notifications, approvals, and moving data between platforms. If it’s repetitive, rules-based, and doesn’t demand millisecond performance, this is a strong fit.

Where it pays off: replacing manual steps and reducing handoffs – without building yet another microservice that you must secure, monitor and maintain.

3) Prototyping and product discovery

Low-code can be brilliant for answering “should we build this?” before you commit to “how should we build this?”. A clickable prototype or a thin workflow can validate demand with real users, then you can rebuild the proven parts properly in your product when the value is clear.

Rule of thumb: prototype in low-code; productise in code.

4) Simple, stable business apps

Some needs are stable and generic by nature: basic CRM-like records, inventory-style lists, request forms, and basic reporting. If the requirements are unlikely to become your differentiator, buying/building with low-code can be sensible.

Where low-code becomes risky (and when not to use it)

1) Your core product experience and differentiators

If it’s the thing customers pay for, it’s probably not the place to compromise on control. Your core product needs predictable performance, deep observability, version control, automated testing, secure SDLC practices, and the ability to refactor safely over time.

Many low-code platforms can support extensions – but you still inherit constraints around architecture, release cycles, runtime behaviour, and portability.

2) High-scale, high-performance workloads

Low-code is often not designed for extreme throughput, highly tuned caching layers, complex asynchronous workflows, or granular resource control. You may hit ceilings you can’t “engineer your way out of” without leaving the platform.

Typical warning signs:

• Your latency targets matter (p95/p99), not just “it loads”.
• You need careful database indexing, query optimisation, or custom caching strategies.
• You need fine-grained control over multi-region behaviour, tenancy isolation, or queue back-pressure.

3) Complex compliance and data boundary constraints

UK SaaS teams often have to demonstrate strong controls around data access, audit trails, and secure development practices. The more your system touches regulated or sensitive data, the more you want a provable secure SDLC with clear traceability and repeatable controls. Framework guidance such as NIST’s SSDF is designed around consistent secure development practices – which is easier to evidence when you control the pipeline end-to-end.

This doesn’t mean low-code is “non-compliant” by default – it means you must be deliberate about what data flows through it, who can build, who can publish, how changes are reviewed, and how access is governed.

4) Anything that needs serious CI/CD hygiene

If your team relies on strong CI/CD practices (testing, security scanning, branch policies, deployment gates), some low-code environments will feel like a mismatch – especially if versioning and promotion between environments is limited or awkward.

The real issue isn’t low-code – it’s governance

Most low-code failures aren’t caused by the tool. They’re caused by uncontrolled sprawl:

• Too many apps built without ownership.
• Unclear data access rules and poor secrets handling.
• Inconsistent environments (dev/test/prod) and “who changed what?” confusion.
• No retirement plan – old apps linger and become risk.

Microsoft’s own guidance on Power Platform leans heavily into governance: environment strategy, access control, security posture, monitoring, and a structured approach to adoption.

If you’re running Power Platform specifically, Microsoft provides a “Center of Excellence (CoE) Starter Kit” to help establish visibility and governance patterns.

A practical decision framework for SaaS teams

When you’re deciding “low-code or custom?”, ask these questions in order:

1) Is this customer-facing and revenue-critical?

If yes: default to custom (or a tightly controlled hybrid). Low-code might still help for supporting workflows, but be cautious about putting your core UX on a platform you can’t fully control.

2) Is performance or scale a key requirement?

If yes: be careful. Low-code platforms can be excellent, but they’re not all built for your specific performance envelope.

3) Does this touch sensitive data, regulated data, or strict audit requirements?

If yes: keep the data boundary tight. Use low-code only if you can demonstrate proper access controls, change controls, logging, and secure SDLC evidence.

4) Is the requirement likely to change weekly?

If yes: low-code is often ideal – especially for internal tooling and ops workflows. It’s faster to adapt.

5) Would building this in code create long-term maintenance overhead?

If a bespoke build becomes “yet another system” you must secure, patch, and maintain, low-code can reduce operational drag – as long as governance is sound.

Hybrid patterns that usually work well

Pattern A: Low-code front-end + custom backend

Use low-code for internal UIs and lightweight flows, but keep core business logic in APIs you own. This can give you speed and control: the UI can change rapidly, while your business rules remain testable, secure, and versioned.

Pattern B: Low-code for orchestration, code for execution

Let low-code trigger workflows (approvals, tickets, notifications), but push heavy or sensitive processing into serverless functions or services you control.

Pattern C: Low-code as the “prototype runway”

Build quickly, validate value, then migrate the final version into your product codebase when it becomes core.

Common “gotchas” to watch for

Vendor lock-in (the quiet cost)

Lock-in isn’t automatically bad – sometimes it’s a sensible trade-off – but you should make it a conscious choice. If a workflow becomes business-critical, ask: “How hard would it be to rebuild this elsewhere if we had to?”

Security assumptions

Teams sometimes assume low-code platforms “handle security”. Some controls are built-in, but you still need to govern identity, access, environments, data connectors, and change control. The platform reduces some work – it doesn’t remove accountability.

Shadow IT sprawl

If anyone can publish apps to production without review, you will eventually get inconsistent data flows, duplicated logic, and compliance headaches. Treat low-code like software development: ownership, review, and lifecycle management.

A simple, safe starting point for UK SaaS SMEs

If you want to adopt low-code without creating a mess, start with a “two-lane” approach:

• Lane 1 (Low-code): internal tools, workflow automation, reporting, lightweight ops apps.
• Lane 2 (Custom): customer-facing product, core logic, billing/security boundaries, anything performance-critical.

Then add three guardrails:

• Governance: clear environments, clear ownership, publishing controls, logging, and regular review.
• Security by design: align with secure development fundamentals (e.g., SSDF concepts) and ensure controls are auditable.
• Exit awareness: document what would be required to migrate critical apps if needed (even if you never do).

Final thought

Low-code isn’t a shortcut – it’s a trade. Used well, it removes low-value engineering work, helps small teams move faster, and gives non-engineering teams a safer way to contribute. Used carelessly, it creates a parallel software estate with unclear ownership and avoidable risk.

If you want, paste the research doc’s key points you want emphasised (or tell me the platforms you’re most likely to mention), and I’ll shape this into Storm’s usual post format: tighter structure, a stronger “when to use / when not to” section, and a practical checklist that feels reassuring rather than overwhelming.