Almost certainly, because that’s the rate for spreadsheet defects.
Many studies have been conducted to gauge the reliability and accuracy of enterprises’ spreadsheets. The data suggests most have defects. Spreadsheets that are designed and built using best practices don’t measure up either, as this study found.
JPMorgan Chase lost more than $6 billion in its “London Whale” incident, in part due to Excel spreadsheet errors (including alleged copying and pasting of incorrect information from multiple spreadsheets).
The vast majority of spreadsheets are built by no-codeists.
What’s the likelihood that your company’s modern no-code systems are free of defects?
If no-codeists built them, the odds are not in your favor.
What is the corresponding percentage of defects in code-based solutions?
While a good question, it’s irrelevant to this defect rate because the people who build no-code systems are generally cut from the same cloth as people who build spreadsheet solutions. That was the point of the article - to use known data from historical no-code solutions to anticipate or predict what is likely occurring in systems built in similar ways.
My hunch is that software developers who decide to slum it with no-code platforms are probably building solutions with a low defect rate for obvious reasons.
That is fair. But it might also be useful to someone contemplating outsourcing a solution—should they outsource to a no-code dev, or a code-based dev. (On the other hand, a good code system might be faster/cheaper/easier to maintain than a full code solution.)
Hum. My experience with text-code-devs is very out of date. It has been over two decades since I worked with code-devs on a daily basis. My gut feeling is that text-code-devs tend to think about edge cases and testing/QA more than no-code devs. But text-code-devs also make their fair share of bugs.