A decision framework that survives contact with real budgets and real users.
Begin with the product, not the framework
Native and cross-platform are delivery strategies, not quality labels. The decision should begin with the experiences the product must provide: camera or sensor use, background activity, offline behaviour, accessibility, animation, device support and release cadence.
If the product is mainly forms, content and standard workflows, shared code can provide strong economics. If it depends on new platform APIs, intensive graphics or deep hardware integration, native development may reduce risk.
Count the real costs
A shared interface does not remove platform work. Teams still test on different devices, handle store policies, manage signing and diagnose platform-specific failures. Cross-platform succeeds when the shared surface is genuinely large and the team retains enough native knowledge to handle the edges.
Native development creates two implementation tracks, but it can simplify performance tuning and platform adoption. Compare the cost of two codebases with the cost of maintaining abstractions and custom bridges.
Choose a reversible path
Define a short technical trial around the hardest product requirement. Measure start-up time, interaction quality, binary size, accessibility, development speed and integration effort. A prototype that only proves the easy screens answers the wrong question.
Keep business rules and service contracts independent of the presentation framework. That makes a later change of client technology possible without rebuilding the entire product.