| Pros |
| 1. Minimum legacy code is migrated, preserving investment. |
| 2. Opens possibility to improve performance for performance-critical code. |
| 3. Opens possibility to improve design for design-critical code. |
| 4. Smaller risk compared to other migration strategies. |
| 5. Less time needed for every local migration step compared to other migration strategies. |
| 6. A sequence of local migration steps decreases the risk, compared to other, more revolutionary migration strategies. |
| Cons |
| 1. .NET migration benefits are applied only locally. |
| 2. Total cost and time to migrate the same amount of code in stages is higher, compared to migration of this code using other, one shot, migration strategies. |
| 3. Often difficult or impossible to separate functionality to be migrated because of its loose coupling with other parts of the application. |
| 4. A legacy code change may be needed to access migrated functionality. |