Inner Reality Limited

Exploring the benefits of WebAR over NativeAR apps

Discover the advantages of WebAR over NativeAR apps in this insightful article.

In the ever-evolving world of technology, Augmented Reality (AR) has emerged as a game-changer, revolutionizing the way we interact with digital content. The two primary ways of delivering AR experiences are through Web-based Augmented Reality (WebAR) and Native Augmented Reality (NativeAR) apps. While both have their merits, this discussion will delve into why WebAR holds an edge over NativeAR apps.

Understanding WebAR and NativeAR

Before we delve into the comparison, it’s crucial to understand what WebAR and NativeAR are. WebAR refers to AR experiences that are accessed through a web browser, eliminating the need for a separate app. On the other hand, NativeAR apps are standalone applications that need to be downloaded and installed on a device to access AR content.
Both WebAR and NativeAR aim to deliver immersive AR experiences, but their methods of delivery and user interaction differ significantly. This difference in approach impacts various factors such as the need to download an app (or not in the case of webAR), accessibility, user experience, and development costs, among others.


One of the most significant advantages of WebAR over NativeAR is its superior accessibility. WebAR can be accessed from any device with a web browser, making it universally accessible. Users don’t need to download an app to experience AR, making it more convenient and user-friendly.
In contrast, NativeAR apps require users to download and install an app, which can be a barrier to entry for many users. Not all users are willing to download a new app due to concerns about storage space, data usage, or privacy. Therefore, WebAR’s accessibility gives it a significant engagement advantage over NativeAR apps.

User Experience

When it comes to user experience, WebAR also holds an edge. The convenience of accessing AR content directly from a web browser enhances the user experience. Users can quickly and easily access AR content without needing to navigate through an app.
On the other hand, while NativeAR apps at times can offer a more immersive experience, the need to download and install an app can detract from the overall user experience. Users may find the process cumbersome and time-consuming, which can discourage them from using the app.

As the investment in WebAR applications continues to grow, distinguishing between experiences will become more challenging. Apple, a major industry player, at their WWDC24 conference, confirmed they are continuing to support their AR development processes, integration of WebXR is a highly anticipated move, with significant support expected for this technology in their very near future. Previously trailing Android in promoting WebXR, Apple’s latest advancements signals a promising future for WebAR. This ongoing integration effort will soon enable WebAR apps to be just as immersive as native AR applications.

Development and Maintenance

From a development perspective, WebAR is often more cost-effective and easier to maintain than NativeAR apps. WebAR development involves creating a single version of the AR experience that can be accessed from any web browser, regardless of the device. This approach reduces development time and costs, as there is no need to create separate versions for different platforms.
Conversely, developing NativeAR apps often involves creating separate versions for different platforms (e.g., iOS, Android), which can increase development time and costs. Additionally, maintaining and updating NativeAR apps can be more complex and costly than maintaining a WebAR experience.


As mentioned, WebAR is typically more cost-effective than NativeAR. The need to develop and maintain separate versions of a NativeAR app for different platforms can significantly increase costs. In contrast, WebAR development involves creating a single version that can be accessed from any device, reducing development costs.
Furthermore, the cost of updating and maintaining a WebAR experience is typically lower than that of a NativeAR app. Updates can be made directly to the web-based AR experience, eliminating the need for users to download updates as they would with a NativeAR app.

Ease of Maintenance

Maintaining a WebAR experience is generally easier and more efficient than maintaining a NativeAR app. Updates and changes can be made directly to the web-based AR experience, and these updates are immediately available to all users. This approach eliminates the need for users to download updates, ensuring they always have access to the latest version.
In contrast, maintaining a NativeAR app can be more complex. Updates need to be downloaded and installed by the user, which can lead to inconsistencies if some users are using outdated versions of the app. This complexity can increase maintenance costs and potentially detract from the user experience.


In conclusion, while both WebAR and NativeAR have their merits, WebAR holds several advantages that make it a more appealing choice for delivering AR experiences. Its superior accessibility, enhanced user experience, cost-effectiveness, and ease of maintenance make it a compelling choice for both developers and users alike.
WebAR’s advantages make it the preferred choice for delivering immersive and engaging AR experiences. As technology continues to evolve, WebAR will further gain the upper hand.

Share This Blog

Stay in the loop

Unlock exclusive updates about our latest augmented reality campaigns and new product features.