Low-code and no-code platforms are transforming how organizations design and deploy digital training—especially immersive and simulation-based learning. Rather than viewing them as binary options, it’s more useful to understand them along a continuum:
Custom Code (Unity) → Low-Code (SDKs & visual scripting layers) → No-Code (SME-driven authoring platforms)
At one end, fully custom environments like Unity offer maximum flexibility but require professional developers, longer timelines, and higher budgets. In the middle, low-code tools accelerate development with visual logic systems while still requiring technical oversight. At the other end, no-code platforms empower learning teams and subject matter experts to create and update training without writing code.
For training leaders, the real question isn’t which model is “better,” but which model aligns with your organization’s speed, scale, governance, and internal capability needs.
The debate between low-code and no-code often oversimplifies the reality of modern training development. These approaches are not opposites; they represent different points along a spectrum of technical complexity and organizational control.
As immersive training expands across industries—particularly in safety-critical and operational environments —organizations are rethinking how they build and maintain training content at scale.
Below, we explore each point on the continuum in depth.
At the far left of the continuum is fully custom development using engines like Unity or Unreal Engine.
Custom-built immersive training experiences are often used for high-fidelity simulations, digital twins, and complex engineering environments. According to the VR/AR Association’s energy white paper, immersive simulations are particularly powerful for high-risk and compliance-heavy sectors .
However, this power comes with trade-offs.
From a training strategy perspective, full-code environments are best suited for flagship simulations that will remain stable over long periods. They are less suited to frequently changing operational training or distributed workforce rollouts.
Low-code platforms sit in the middle of the spectrum. They aim to reduce development complexity without eliminating it entirely.
Low-code environments often build on engines like Unity using SDKs or frameworks that abstract common functionality (navigation, scoring, object interaction). This can significantly accelerate development compared to full custom builds.
The Industrial XR Forum’s survey shows that many organizations remain in research, pilot, or early scaling phases when deploying immersive training . A recurring barrier is internal capability—teams struggle to balance innovation with maintainability.
Low-code attempts to bridge that gap.
In practice, low-code works well in organizations where L&D and IT collaborate closely. It reduces development time but does not fully democratize content creation.
At the far right of the continuum are no-code platforms designed for non-technical users.
The VRARA Energy Committee emphasizes the importance of aligning immersive training with real business needs and internal capability building . No-code platforms reflect this shift—moving from outsourced development toward internal empowerment.
No-code is particularly effective when training content must be updated frequently, localized across regions, or aligned to site-specific procedures. It shifts the bottleneck from development teams to operational expertise.
|
Dimension |
Custom Code |
Low-Code |
No-Code |
|
Programming Required |
High |
Moderate |
None |
|
Speed to Deploy |
Slow |
Medium |
Fast |
|
Cost to Update |
High |
Moderate |
Low |
|
SME Involvement |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
|
Governance |
Developer-led |
Hybrid |
Platform-structured |
|
Scalability |
Complex |
Moderate |
High |
This table illustrates a broader strategic truth: the further right you move on the continuum, the more you prioritize scalability and speed over infinite flexibility.
When deciding where to position your organization on the continuum, consider the following:
If yes, high-dependency development models may become a liability.
If technical capacity is limited, low-code may still present friction.
Scalability often favors structured authoring systems.
Not every training objective demands a full-engine build.
Ultimately, the “right” solution aligns with your operational tempo, governance structure, and long-term training strategy.
Low-code reduces the amount of programming required but still relies on scripting and technical oversight. No-code eliminates programming entirely, enabling instructional designers and SMEs to build training directly.
It depends on your definition of power. For hyper-realistic, physics-based simulations, Unity offers greater flexibility. For scalable, repeatable, and frequently updated training scenarios, no-code platforms may be more operationally powerful.
Yes. Some organizations use custom builds for complex flagship simulations while leveraging low-code or no-code platforms for broader procedural and compliance training.
It reduces development time, but maintenance and iteration may still require technical resources. The total cost advantage depends on update frequency and scale.
No-code is strongest when: