Swift is Apple's native iOS language, compiled to ARM machine code. React Native is a JavaScript framework that bridges to native UI. The choice impacts performance, app size, hiring, and 5-year maintenance cost.
| Feature | Swift (Native iOS) | React Native |
|---|---|---|
| Language | Swift 6, statically typed | JavaScript / TypeScript over JS bridge |
| Performance | Native ARM, 60–120 FPS, Metal GPU | JS bridge overhead, frame drops on lists |
| App size (typical) | 8–25 MB | 30–80 MB |
| Cold launch | 0.4–0.8s | 1.5–3.0s |
| Day-1 iOS API support | Same day as iOS release | Months of lag (community wrappers) |
| App Store featuring eligibility | Frequently featured | Rarely featured |
| Hiring pool (US) | Mature, abundant | Abundant but iOS-fluent RN devs are rare |
| Cross-platform code reuse | 0% with Android | 70–90% with Android |
| 5-year maintenance cost | Predictable, low churn | High — RN major upgrades break libs |
| Apple Watch / Vision Pro support | Full, native | Not supported |
Choose Swift for any product that needs longevity, polish, App Store featuring eligibility, or access to day-1 Apple APIs. Choose React Native only when you have an existing JavaScript team and need iOS as a low-priority secondary surface.
Yes for UI, animations, and computation. Swift compiles to ARM machine code; React Native bridges through JavaScript. The gap is small for static screens and large for scroll-heavy lists, charts, and AR.
It's rare. Apple's editorial team explicitly favors apps that demonstrate native polish, system integration, and adoption of new APIs — areas where React Native consistently lags.
Native Swift over a 3+ year horizon. React Native saves money in year 1 (shared Android code) but costs more in years 2–5 due to upgrade churn, native module maintenance, and platform-specific bug-hunting.