Alternative options for Android and iOS ad-hoc distribution to testers, now Visual Studio App Center has shut down
Microsoft's App Center was a widely used mobile DevOps platform offering mobile CI/CD, beta distribution, and analytics.
With Microsoft discontinuing the service in 2025, teams who previously depended on it are forced to explore alternative options. Let's explore some of the alternatives out there for facilitating ad-hoc distribution of pre-release apps to testers.
Buildstash
Buildstash offers a simple replacement for App Center's beta distribution functionality for iOS and Android, while additionally offering support for managing and sharing binaries across any software platform. So rather than a mobile-specific focus, Buildstash also supports desktop platforms, XR and game teams, embedded systems, and so on.
Buildstash has extensive CI/CD integrations, uploading via a simple API, and a simple "App Center style" web uploader.
For mobile apps, it allows you to upload Android APK/AAB and iOS IPA files and share them with testers via multiple methods: distribution groups, simple share links, and even branded portals you can host on your website. This makes it the most flexible in terms of distribution methods. Unlike some other options, testers don’t need accounts, which makes it ideal for sharing builds with external stakeholders such as clients or QA vendors.
Beyond all this, Buildstash offers more comprehensive management of software binaries, including archival, and QA approval workflows.
Firebase App Distribution
Firebase App Distribution is part of Google’s broader Firebase ecosystem and provides a solution for distributing pre-release Android and iOS apps to trusted testers. It supports managed tester groups, email-based invites, release notes, and crash reporting when paired with Firebase Crashlytics. For Android teams especially, it offers a smooth experience thanks to its tight integration with Gradle and the Android toolchain.
On the iOS side, Firebase App Distribution supports both ad-hoc and enterprise builds, though provisioning and certificate management remain the developer’s responsibility. Teams already invested in Firebase for analytics, authentication, or backend services often find this option convenient, as it consolidates multiple aspects of the development workflow into a single platform, and offers a free plan.
Expo Application Services (EAS)
Expo Application Services (EAS) provides build and distribution tooling specifically for React Native and Expo-based applications. EAS includes a CI/CD tool for Expo apps, and allows developers to easily share resulting builds with internally with testers.
If you're developing an Expo or React Native app, and especially if you're already within the EAS ecosystem, this may be a simple and effective choice for sharing beta builds.
Applivery
Applivery is a more enterprise focused mobile platform, especially suited to internal distribution with Mobile Device Management (MDM). They now additionally offer beta testing with un-managed devices, but it may be an expensive option, starting from €49 for only 1 user / 3 apps / 300 downloads. Applivery also provides over-the-air updates and integrates with popular CI/CD tools, making it suitable for structured testing environments.
Applivery's enterprise and MDM focus may make it particularly attractive for larger teams or organizations that need more governance and traceability in their beta testing process.
Appcircle
Appcircle is positioned as a complete build platform targeting enterprise, including CI/CD. Thus with build automation, testing, and distribution, this may make it an attractive option to replace App Center's feature set for larger teams with an enterprise budget. Its distribution module supports ad-hoc sharing of Android and iOS builds, tester groups, and version history, all accessible through a web dashboard.
Top comments (1)
This is a solid breakdown, and I like that you frame it around distribution, not just “what replaces App Center.” A lot of teams are discovering that they didn’t really need a monolithic platform — they needed a reliable way to get builds into the right hands with minimal friction.
What stands out to me across these options is how different the tradeoffs are depending on who your testers actually are. Internal dev teams can tolerate accounts and tooling. External QA, clients, or stakeholders usually can’t. That’s where things like account-less links and branded portals start to matter more than people expect.
I also think the Firebase vs. enterprise-focused tools contrast is important. Firebase feels great if you’re already living in that ecosystem, but once iOS cert management or cross-platform workflows get involved, the “simple” path can get surprisingly complex. On the flip side, enterprise tools solve governance really well, but you pay for that structure whether you need it or not.
One thing App Center used to do well was sit in the middle — opinionated enough to be usable, but not so heavy that it dictated your entire pipeline. Replacing it often means deciding which parts you actually valued most: CI, distribution, analytics, or just frictionless sharing.
Good timing for this post too. A lot of teams are quietly scrambling right now, and having a clear landscape helps turn that scramble into an actual decision instead of a panic migration.