Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The growing use of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence across sectors has shown strong potential to improve decision-making processes. However, the adoption of ML by non-technical professionals remains limited due to the complexity of traditional development workflows, which often require software engineering and data science expertise. In recent years, low-code and no-code platforms have emerged as promising solutions to democratize ML by abstracting many of the technical tasks typically involved in software engineering pipelines. This paper investigates whether these platforms can offer a viable alternative for making ML accessible to non-expert users. Beyond predictive performance, this study also evaluates usability, setup complexity, the transparency of automated workflows, and cost management under realistic “out-of-the-box” conditions. This multidimensional perspective provides insights into the practical viability of LC/NC tools in real-world contexts. The comparative evaluation was conducted using three leading cloud-based tools: Amazon SageMaker Canvas, Google Cloud Vertex AI, and Azure Machine Learning Studio. These tools employ ensemble-based learning algorithms such as Gradient Boosted Trees, XGBoost, and Random Forests. Unlike traditional ML workflows that require extensive software engineering knowledge and manual optimization, these platforms enable domain experts to build predictive models through visual interfaces. The findings show that all platforms achieved high accuracy, with consistent identification of key features. Google Cloud Vertex AI was the most user-friendly, SageMaker Canvas offered a highly visual interface with some setup complexity, and Azure Machine Learning delivered the best model performance with a steeper learning curve. Cost transparency also varied considerably, with Google Cloud and Azure providing clearer safeguards against unexpected charges compared to Sagemaker Canvas.
Giraldo et al. (Fri,) studied this question.