Jetpack Compose in 2026: Should You Finally Retire XML Layouts?

Jetpack Compose has changed how Android UIs are built. But does that mean XML is finally obsolete? Here’s what modern Android teams should consider before making the switch.

Android UI Development Is Changing

For more than a decade, Android developers have been familiar with a particular workflow:

XML layout → View → Activity/Fragment → Adapter → UI updates

You define a layout in XML.

You inflate it.

You find views.

You update them from Kotlin or Java.

You manage listeners.

You handle visibility.

You coordinate state.

It works.

And it has powered millions of Android applications.

But Android development has changed significantly.

Modern applications are increasingly expected to provide:

• Responsive interfaces
• Dynamic UI states
• Material 3 design
• Adaptive layouts
• Smooth animations
• Multiple screen sizes
• Foldable support
• Better accessibility
• Faster development cycles

This is where Jetpack Compose enters the picture.

Compose changes the fundamental way developers think about Android UI.

Instead of describing a hierarchy of Views in XML and then manipulating those Views from Kotlin, developers describe the UI directly in Kotlin.

The result is a much more declarative approach:

Describe what the UI should look like for a given state, rather than manually telling every View how to change.

So the question for Android teams heading into 2026 is no longer:

"Should I learn Jetpack Compose?"

For most new Android development, the answer is already clear.

The more interesting question is:

"Should we finally stop using XML?"

The answer is more nuanced.

Why Compose Became the New Default

Jetpack Compose represents a major shift in Android UI development.

Traditional Android Views are imperative.

You typically tell the framework what to do:

textView.text = "Hello"
button.isEnabled = false
progressBar.visibility = View.VISIBLE

With Compose, you describe the desired UI state:

@Composable
fun ProfileScreen(isLoading: Boolean) {
    if (isLoading) {
        CircularProgressIndicator()
    } else {
        Text("Profile")
    }
}

The difference may look small.

Architecturally, it is significant.

Compose encourages developers to think about UI as a function of state:

UI = f(State)

When the state changes, Compose updates the relevant UI.

You are not required to manually find every View and update it.

That makes complex, dynamic interfaces easier to reason about.

XML vs. Compose: What Actually Changes?

Consider a simple XML layout.

You might have:

<TextView
    android:id="@+id/title"
    android:layout_width="wrap_content"
    android:layout_height="wrap_content"
    android:text="Welcome" />

Then Kotlin code might retrieve and modify it:

binding.title.text = "Hello, Swapnil"

With Compose, the UI and behavior can live much closer together:

@Composable
fun Welcome(title: String) {
    Text(text = title)
}

And then:

Welcome(title = "Hello, Android")

There is no separate XML file.

No `findViewById()`.

No view binding for that particular component.

No manual synchronization between a layout definition and the Kotlin code.

Instead, the component receives data and describes what should be rendered.

This makes Compose particularly attractive for UI that changes frequently based on state.

The Biggest Advantages of Jetpack Compose

Compose is not simply "XML written in Kotlin."

Its biggest advantage is that it changes the development model.

1. Less UI Boilerplate

Traditional View-based interfaces often require significant plumbing.

You may need:

• View Binding
• Adapters
• XML resources
• Fragment lifecycle handling
• Click listeners
• View visibility management
• Manual UI updates

Compose can reduce much of this code.

For example:

@Composable
fun LoginButton(enabled: Boolean, onLogin: () -> Unit) {
    Button(
        enabled = enabled,
        onClick = onLogin
    ) {
        Text("Login")
    }
}

The component describes its behavior and appearance directly.

2. State-Driven UI

This is probably the most important concept to understand.

Imagine a screen with three possible states:

Loading

Success

Error

In an imperative UI, you might manually change visibility for multiple Views.

In Compose, the UI can directly reflect the state:

when (state) {
    Loading -> LoadingView()
    is Success -> ContentView(state.data)
    is Error -> ErrorView(state.message)
}

This approach makes the UI easier to reason about.

Instead of asking:

"Which Views should I hide?"

you ask:

"What should the screen look like in this state?"

That is a much cleaner mental model.

3. Reusable UI Becomes Easier

Compose makes componentization natural.

You can create small reusable functions:

@Composable
fun UserCard(
    name: String,
    role: String
) {
    Card {
        Column {
            Text(name)
            Text(role)
        }
    }
}

Then use them anywhere:

UserCard(
    name = "Alex",
    role = "Android Developer"
)

This makes design systems easier to build.

Instead of thinking primarily in terms of XML layouts and View hierarchies, teams can build a library of reusable composable components.

4. Material 3 Fits Naturally

Modern Android applications increasingly use Material 3 concepts such as:

• Dynamic color
• Modern typography
• Adaptive components
• Updated navigation patterns
• Modern design tokens

Compose integrates naturally with Material 3.

A typical application can establish its visual system through a theme:

MaterialTheme(
    colorScheme = colorScheme,
    typography = typography
) {
    AppContent()
}

This makes design consistency easier to maintain across an application.

5. Responsive UI Becomes More Natural

Android devices are no longer just phones.

Developers increasingly need to consider:

• Tablets
• Foldables
• Large screens
• Multi-window experiences
• Different orientations
• Desktop-like environments

Compose provides tools for building adaptive layouts based on available space rather than assuming a fixed screen size.

That makes it a strong fit for the increasingly diverse Android device ecosystem.

Where XML Still Makes Sense

Now for the important part.

XML is not suddenly useless.

There are still situations where existing View-based layouts make sense.

Large Legacy Applications

A mature application may contain hundreds or thousands of XML layouts.

Rewriting everything simply because Compose is newer can create unnecessary risk.

If the existing UI is stable and works well, there may be little business value in replacing it immediately.

Existing View-Based Libraries

Some Android libraries and components are still fundamentally View-based.

Compose provides interoperability with the existing Android View system.

That means teams do not have to migrate everything at once.

You can embed Views inside Compose:

AndroidView(
    factory = { context ->
        LegacyCustomView(context)
    }
)

And you can also use Compose inside traditional View-based screens.

This interoperability is one of the most important reasons migration can happen gradually.

What Happens to Existing XML Applications?

This is where many teams make a mistake.

They think migration means:

Delete XML → Rewrite everything in Compose.

It does not.

A better strategy is incremental migration.

For example:

Existing XML Application → Add Compose → Build New Screens in Compose → Create Shared Components → Migrate High-Value Screens → Replace Legacy UI Gradually

You can have:

XML + Compose

in the same application.

That is completely reasonable during a migration period.

A mature application may remain hybrid for years.

The goal should not be:

"Remove every XML file."

The goal should be:

"Use the best UI technology for each part of the application."

Compose and Modern Android Architecture

Compose works particularly well with modern Android architecture.

A common structure might look like:

UI → ViewModel → Use Case → Repository → Data Sources

The ViewModel exposes state.

The Compose UI observes that state.

The UI emits user events.

The ViewModel processes those events.

For example:

@Composable
fun ProfileScreen(
    state: ProfileUiState,
    onAction: (ProfileAction) -> Unit
) {
    // Render state
}

This encourages a clean separation:

State → UI

and

User Action → ViewModel

The UI becomes more predictable because it primarily renders state rather than owning complex business logic.

Performance: Is Compose Really Faster?

This question comes up frequently.

The honest answer is:

It depends on how you build the UI.

Compose is not automatically faster simply because it is newer.

It introduces a different rendering model based around composition and recomposition.

When state changes, Compose determines which parts of the UI need to be recomposed.

Well-designed Compose applications can perform extremely well.

But poorly structured Compose code can still create performance problems.

Developers should pay attention to:

• Unnecessary recompositions
• Unstable parameters
• Excessive state reads
• Large composable functions
• Expensive work inside composables
• Poorly optimized lists
• Incorrect image loading strategies

The important lesson is:

Compose changes the performance model. It does not eliminate the need to understand performance.

State Management Becomes the Real Skill

Learning Compose syntax is relatively easy.

Understanding state is harder.

You need to know:

Where should state live?

Who owns it?

When should it change?

Which components need it?

What happens when configuration changes?

What should survive process recreation?

For example:

var query by rememberSaveable {
    mutableStateOf("")
}

This is different from state owned by a ViewModel.

Understanding the difference between:

• Local UI state
• Saved UI state
• ViewModel state
• Repository state
• Persistent application data

is much more important than memorizing individual Compose APIs.

In other words:

Compose makes UI code simpler, but it makes good state architecture even more important.

Testing Compose Applications

Compose also changes how UI testing can be approached.

Instead of interacting exclusively with Android Views, developers can work with Compose semantics.

For example, UI elements can expose meaningful semantics for testing and accessibility.

A test can conceptually express:

composeTestRule
    .onNodeWithText("Login")
    .performClick()

This can make certain UI tests more readable.

But testing still requires good architecture.

A poorly structured application can be difficult to test regardless of whether it uses XML or Compose.

The best results come from separating:

UI

State

Business Logic

Data

and testing each layer appropriately.

Common Mistakes When Migrating

Moving to Compose is not automatically an architectural improvement.

Here are some common mistakes.

Recreating XML Thinking in Compose

Developers sometimes write enormous composables that behave like old XML layouts.

That misses much of Compose's benefit.

Break interfaces into meaningful components.

Putting Business Logic Inside Composables

A composable should primarily describe UI.

Avoid turning it into a giant controller containing networking, database operations, validation, and business rules.

Overusing State

Not every variable needs to be observable Compose state.

Use the appropriate state owner for the problem.

Ignoring Recomposition

Developers new to Compose sometimes assume that every recomposition is expensive.

Others go to the opposite extreme and ignore recomposition entirely.

The better approach is to understand when recomposition happens and structure code so expensive work is not unnecessarily repeated.

Migrating Without a Strategy

"Let's rewrite the entire app in Compose" is rarely a good migration plan.

Start with measurable goals.

A Practical Migration Strategy

If you maintain an existing Android application, consider this approach.

Step 1: Keep the Existing Application Stable

Do not rewrite working features simply to use newer technology.

Step 2: Introduce Compose

Set up Compose alongside the existing View system.

Step 3: Build New Features in Compose

This prevents the XML footprint from growing.

Step 4: Identify High-Value Legacy Screens

Look for screens that:

• Change frequently
• Have complicated UI state
• Require many UI updates
• Need responsive layouts
• Are expensive to maintain

These are often good migration candidates.

Step 5: Create a Shared Design System

Build reusable Compose components and establish consistent:

• Colors
• Typography
• Spacing
• Shapes
• Components

Step 6: Migrate Incrementally

Move feature by feature instead of rewriting the entire application.

Step 7: Measure the Results

Track:

Development Time + Crash Rates + UI Performance + Testability + Maintenance Cost

If migration is not improving meaningful engineering or product outcomes, reconsider where it is being applied.

Should You Retire XML in 2026?

For new Android applications, Compose should generally be the default choice.

It aligns well with modern Android development, declarative UI, reusable components, adaptive interfaces, and state-driven architecture.

For existing applications, however, the answer is different.

You do not need to delete XML just because Compose exists.

A better decision framework is:

Starting a New App?

Choose Compose.

Building a New Feature in an Existing App?

Strongly consider Compose.

Maintaining Stable XML Screens?

Keep them if they work.

Rebuilding a Complex, Frequently Changing XML Screen?

Compose may provide significant value.

Migrating Thousands of XML Files Just to "Modernize"?

Probably not worth doing all at once.

The goal is modernization with business and engineering value—not modernization for its own sake.

The Future of Android UI Development

The interesting question is no longer whether Compose will replace every XML layout immediately.

The more important trend is that Android UI development is becoming increasingly:

Declarative

State-driven

Component-based

Adaptive

Kotlin-first

Compose fits naturally into that direction.

XML will continue to exist in many mature codebases.

View-based APIs will continue to matter.

Interoperability will remain important.

But for developers starting new UI work, Compose increasingly represents the direction Android development is moving toward.

The transition is therefore less like:

XML → Compose → XML disappears

and more like:

Legacy Views → Hybrid Applications → Compose for New Features → Reusable Compose Design Systems → Compose-First Android Development

That is a much more realistic path.

Final Takeaway

Jetpack Compose is not simply another Android UI toolkit.

It represents a different way of thinking about interface development.

Instead of:

Find the View → Change the View → Update the UI

the modern approach becomes:

Change the State → Render the UI

That shift can dramatically simplify complex interfaces when the application architecture is designed around it.

So, should XML finally retire in 2026?

Not completely.

But for new Android UI development, XML is increasingly becoming the legacy choice rather than the default choice.

The practical future looks less like a dramatic rewrite and more like a gradual transition:

XML Where It Still Works → Compose Where It Adds Value → Compose-First for New Development

And perhaps that is the healthiest way to modernize Android development.

Don't migrate because XML is old. Migrate because Compose makes the software better.