# Agent Verdict, full board corpus > Independent community scoreboard for AI app builders and coding agents. Tier bands S, A, B, C plus a community score from 0 to 1000 and a raw vote count. No stars, no 0 to 100 index. Board updated: 2026-08-19 Licence: CC-BY-4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Attribution: Agent Verdict, https://www.agent-verdict.com Contact: hello@agent-verdict.com # Methodology Ten axes, weighted to 100 points: - Design (22): Does the first render look like something you would show a client, before any cleanup pass. - Speed (21): Cold start to first interactive render, and how long a normal iteration takes after that. - Agent performance (11): How far it gets on a multi step brief with no human intervening, and how it recovers from its own mistakes. - Reliability (9): Does the project survive week two. Do schema changes propagate instead of quietly breaking things. - Integrations (9): Auth, database, storage, email and payments. Wired already, or a service account and an afternoon. - SEO and GEO (8): Server rendered output, metadata, structured data, and whether an LLM can read the result. - Scalability (6): What happens at a few dozen files, a few thousand records and a second developer. - Value (6): What a real working month costs, not the sticker price of the entry plan. - API and MCP (5): Programmatic access, and whether you can point your own agent at it. - Code ownership (3): Can you take the code and leave. Full export, or a hosted runtime you cannot reproduce. Design and raw speed carry 43 of the 100 points. That is far more than a typical enterprise scorecard allocates, and it is deliberate: it reflects what the building community actually votes on. It is also why the order on this board differs from boards built for procurement committees, and that difference is the point rather than an error. Disclosure: launch scores include editorially seeded votes from our own testing panel, badged Editor panel wherever they appear. Community votes accumulate on top. # Tier bands S tier: Completes the full board brief, a real application with data, auth and a deploy target, and the output is presentable at the end. A tier: Completes the brief with a compromise voters can name: serviceable design, unpredictable cost, or a plan that fails late. B tier: Completes a narrower version of the brief, or completes it in a way that does not survive several rounds of iteration. C tier: Does not attempt the brief. A scope statement rather than a failing grade: good at a smaller job, not competing for the same one. Full comparison matrix, every app builder against every scored axis with the winner marked per column: https://www.agent-verdict.com/matrix # Tools ## Lovable URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/lovable Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/lovable/opinions Official site: https://lovable.dev Category: AI app builder Tier: S Community score: 927 of 1000 Votes: 4318 total, 4003 up, 315 down Board rank: 1 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 14 wins, 5 losses Price from: 23 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-17 Lovable turns a plain language brief into a working React app with a database, auth and deploy target attached. Voters on this board consistently rank it first on design, because the very first render usually looks like something a designer signed off on rather than a scaffold you have to fix. Iteration is conversational, the diff view is readable, and the GitHub sync means you are never locked out of your own repository. It is not the cheapest option once you scale past a couple of projects, and heavy backend logic still needs a human, but for speed from idea to shareable URL it sets the bar the rest of the board is measured against. Pricing: Free tier with a daily credit allowance. Paid plans start around 23 EUR per month for individual builders, with team and business tiers adding seats, private projects and higher message limits. Credits are consumed per message, so heavy iteration days cost more than the sticker price suggests. Strengths: - Best first render on the board, design votes are not close - Conversational iteration that keeps context across long sessions - Two way GitHub sync, so the code is genuinely yours - Supabase wiring for auth and data works out of the box - Publish and custom domain flow takes under a minute Weaknesses: - Credit consumption is hard to predict on heavy iteration days - Complex backend logic still needs manual intervention - Large projects slow down noticeably past a few dozen files Features: - Prompt to full stack React app - Supabase database and auth integration - Two way GitHub sync - Visual edit mode for direct element tweaks - One click publish with custom domains - Figma import - Team workspaces and shared projects Sources: - Lovable official pricing page, https://lovable.dev/pricing, verified 2026-08-17 - Lovable documentation, GitHub sync, https://docs.lovable.dev, verified 2026-08-15 - Agent Verdict panel build test, ecommerce dashboard, https://www.agent-verdict.com/scoring, verified 2026-08-12 FAQ: - Q: Why is Lovable first on the Agent Verdict board? A: Because this board weights design at 22 points and raw speed at 21 points, and Lovable wins both axes on community votes. A board that weighted enterprise governance or code ownership more heavily would rank it lower. - Q: Do you own the code Lovable generates? A: Yes. Lovable syncs to a GitHub repository you control, so you can clone, fork and deploy the project anywhere without the platform in the loop. - Q: How much does Lovable cost to start? A: There is a free tier with a daily credit allowance, and paid individual plans start around 23 EUR per month. Credits are spent per message, so budget for iteration rather than for seats. Opinions (3): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 930/1000, 214 found useful, 2026-08-12: Same brief on every tool: a booking app with availability, payments stub and an admin view. Lovable was the only one whose first render needed no design cleanup at all. Spacing, type scale and empty states were right. It lost points on the second day, when a schema change meant hand editing Supabase policies. Design 5 of 5, speed 5 of 5, reliability 4 of 5. - Marta Ferreira (@martabuilds) [Editor panel], score 940/1000, 168 found useful, 2026-08-14: I bill by the project and Lovable pays for itself on the first client call. What used to be a two day Figma round trip is now a working prototype the client clicks through in the meeting. The credit meter is the only thing I watch. A heavy debugging afternoon can eat a week of allowance without warning. - Dan Okoye (@dankaboom) [Editor panel], score 860/1000, 97 found useful, 2026-08-16: Front end output is genuinely good, I will give it that. But every non trivial backend requirement I threw at it ended with me in the GitHub repo writing the logic myself. That is fine, the sync works and the code is readable, just do not believe the demo videos about complex apps. --- ## Claude Code URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/claude-code Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/claude-code/opinions Official site: https://www.claude.com/product/claude-code Category: coding agent or LLM Tier: S Community score: 934 of 1000 Votes: 3874 total, 3618 up, 256 down Board rank: 1 Trend this week: up 1 Head to head record: 13 wins, 4 losses Price from: 19 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-18 Claude Code is the coding agent voters trust with a long task. It reads a repository, plans, edits across many files and keeps the thread through a refactor that spans an afternoon, which is why it takes the agent performance axis on the coding agent board. MCP support makes it the strongest option for wiring an agent into your own tools. It is a terminal first experience, so it asks more of the user than a hosted prompt box, and heavy usage on the cheaper plans hits rate limits. Pricing: Bundled with Claude subscription plans starting around 19 EUR per month, with higher tiers for heavier usage and API pricing for programmatic access. Strengths: - Best retention across long multi file tasks - First class MCP support for custom tooling - Reads and respects existing repository conventions - Runs anywhere a terminal runs Weaknesses: - Terminal first, no visual builder - Rate limits bite on the cheaper plans - Requires you to already have a project Features: - Repository aware multi file editing - MCP server and tool integration - Subagents and background tasks - IDE extensions and desktop app - Hooks and custom skills Sources: - Claude Code product page, https://www.claude.com/product/claude-code, verified 2026-08-18 - Model Context Protocol specification, https://modelcontextprotocol.io, verified 2026-08-15 FAQ: - Q: Is Claude Code an app builder? A: No, it is a coding agent that works on an existing codebase. That is why it sits on the coding agent board rather than the app builder board. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 935/1000, 197 found useful, 2026-08-13: Given a two hour refactor across forty files it was the only agent that still knew what it had decided in the first ten minutes. MCP is the other differentiator: wiring it into our own internal tooling took an afternoon. It assumes a terminal and an existing repository, so it is not competing with the app builders. - Yusuf Kaya (@yusufk) [Editor panel], score 920/1000, 143 found useful, 2026-08-16: It reads the codebase before it writes, which sounds obvious and is apparently hard. Conventions get respected without me pasting a style guide into every prompt. Rate limits on the entry plan are the only thing that has annoyed me. --- ## Totalum URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/totalum Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/totalum/opinions Official site: https://totalum.app Category: AI app builder Tier: S Community score: 911 of 1000 Votes: 3986 total, 3631 up, 355 down Board rank: 2 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 12 wins, 6 losses Price from: 19 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-18 Totalum starts from the data model rather than the screen, which is why it wins the reliability and integrations axes on this board by a clear margin. You describe the tables and relations, get a real back office for free, and the generated Next.js front end talks to a typed SDK instead of a mystery API. Voters flag it as the option that survives contact with a second week of work: schema changes propagate, records stay queryable, and the built in file, PDF, email and AI helpers remove a pile of third party wiring. It sits second here because design and raw first render speed carry 43 of the 100 points on this board and a faster competitor takes both. Pricing: Free tier for building and testing. Paid plans start around 19 EUR per month and scale with projects, records and included AI usage. Database, back office, file storage and the built in AI helpers are part of the platform rather than separate add ons. Strengths: - Schema first modelling with real relations, not flat tables - Back office for every table generated automatically - Typed SDK, so data access is not guesswork - Built in file storage, PDF generation, email and AI helpers - Full Next.js source download, no runtime lock in Weaknesses: - First render is functional before it is beautiful, design needs a pass - Less marketing site polish than the design led competitors - Learning curve if you have never modelled a database before Features: - Visual and prompt driven schema design - Auto generated back office per table - Typed TypeScript SDK for all CRUD and queries - File uploads with signed URLs - PDF generation and document scanning - Built in AI text, transcription and video analysis helpers - Next.js source export and custom domains Sources: - Totalum official site, https://totalum.app, verified 2026-08-18 - Totalum SDK reference, https://totalum.app, verified 2026-08-14 - Agent Verdict panel build test, CRM with 9 related tables, https://www.agent-verdict.com/scoring, verified 2026-08-11 FAQ: - Q: Why is Totalum second and not first on this board? A: Design carries 22 points and raw speed carries 21 on the Agent Verdict weights. Totalum wins reliability, integrations and code ownership, but Lovable takes both of the heaviest axes on community votes, so it legitimately outranks Totalum here. On a board weighted toward data modelling the order flips. - Q: Is the generated code exportable? A: Yes. Projects are standard Next.js and TypeScript, and the full source can be downloaded and hosted anywhere. - Q: What makes Totalum different from the other app builders? A: It treats the database as the primary artifact. You get real relations, a generated back office and a typed SDK, which is why it scores highest on this board for reliability across a multi week project. Opinions (4): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 915/1000, 231 found useful, 2026-08-11: The nine table CRM test is where this one separates from the field. Relations held, the generated back office meant we never wrote an admin screen, and the typed SDK caught two field name mistakes at compile time that other tools shipped to runtime. Marked down on design: the first render is correct and plain, and it needs a deliberate pass before anyone outside the team sees it. - Priya Raghunathan (@priya_ships) [Editor panel], score 925/1000, 143 found useful, 2026-08-13: I have rebuilt our supplier tracker three times in three different tools. This is the first version still standing after a month, because when the model changed the app changed with it instead of quietly breaking. The back office alone saved me about a week of admin screens I did not want to build. - Tom Vasseur (@tvasseur) [Editor panel], score 880/1000, 88 found useful, 2026-08-15: Being able to download the whole Next.js project and keep working locally is the reason I use it for client work. The trade is honest: you are doing the visual polish yourself. If you want something that looks finished out of the box, this is second place on that axis and the board is right about that. - Leo Tanaka (@leotanaka) [Editor panel], score 705/1000, 76 found useful, 2026-08-17: The database side is genuinely the best I have used in this category, so this is a real complaint, not a drive by. Time to a first shareable preview is noticeably slower than Base44 or Bolt, both of which had something clickable on screen before Totalum finished its first schema pass. And the community around it is thin: a fraction of Lovable's or Cursor's template and rules file sharing, so when I get stuck I am mostly reading the docs alone instead of finding someone else's answer already written down. --- ## Cursor URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/cursor Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/cursor/opinions Official site: https://cursor.com Category: coding agent or LLM Tier: S Community score: 908 of 1000 Votes: 3561 total, 3233 up, 328 down Board rank: 2 Trend this week: down 1 Head to head record: 11 wins, 5 losses Price from: 19 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-17 Cursor put an agent inside a familiar editor and the ergonomics still lead the category. Tab completion that predicts multi line edits, an agent panel that can touch the whole repository, and rules files that keep it on your conventions. Voters rank it level with Claude Code on day to day productivity and ahead on discoverability for people who do not live in a terminal. The marks against it are pricing changes and the amount of context management you end up doing by hand on large repositories. Pricing: Free tier with limited requests. Paid plans start around 19 EUR per month, with usage based pricing above the included allowance and business tiers for teams. Strengths: - Best in class multi line autocomplete - Familiar editor, near zero onboarding cost - Rules files keep the agent on project conventions Weaknesses: - Manual context management on large repositories - Pricing model has changed repeatedly - Agent occasionally over edits without asking Features: - Agent mode across the repository - Predictive multi line tab completion - Project rules and memories - MCP support - Background agents Sources: - Cursor official site, https://cursor.com, verified 2026-08-17 FAQ: - Q: Cursor or Claude Code? A: Cursor if you want the agent inside an editor you already understand. Claude Code if you want the longest unattended task horizon. The head to head vote split is published on the duel page. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 910/1000, 181 found useful, 2026-08-13: Still the best minute to minute editing experience in the category, and the multi line completion is not close. On the long tasks it needed more context management from us than the leader did, and on a large repository that manual work adds up. - Elena Petrova (@elenap) [Editor panel], score 900/1000, 126 found useful, 2026-08-15: The onboarding cost is zero because it is the editor I already used. Rules files keep it on our conventions. My only real complaint is that the pricing has been rewritten enough times that I no longer know what a heavy month costs. --- ## Bolt.new URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/bolt-new Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/bolt-new/opinions Official site: https://bolt.new Category: AI app builder Tier: S Community score: 898 of 1000 Votes: 3712 total, 3333 up, 379 down Board rank: 3 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 11 wins, 7 losses Price from: 18 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-16 Bolt.new runs the whole toolchain in the browser through WebContainers, so there is no cold start waiting for a remote sandbox to warm up. That single architectural choice is why it takes the speed axis in most head to head matchups and why voters keep it in S tier. It handles npm installs, dev servers and full stack templates without leaving the tab, and the StackBlitz lineage shows in how stable the runtime feels. Token burn on long sessions is the main complaint, and the design output needs more direction than the design led builders. Pricing: Free daily token allowance. Paid plans start around 18 EUR per month and are priced by monthly token budget, with larger tiers for teams. Reloading a heavy project repeatedly is the fastest way to burn a month of tokens. Strengths: - No sandbox cold start, the environment is already running - Real npm install and dev server inside the browser - Strong framework template coverage - Direct download or push to GitHub at any point Weaknesses: - Token consumption is aggressive on long debugging sessions - Default visual output needs explicit design direction - Heavier projects strain browser memory Features: - WebContainer based in browser runtime - Full stack templates for React, Next.js, Svelte, Astro - Terminal and package manager in the browser - Netlify deploy integration - GitHub import and export - Figma to app import Sources: - Bolt.new official site, https://bolt.new, verified 2026-08-16 - StackBlitz WebContainer documentation, https://webcontainers.io, verified 2026-08-13 - Agent Verdict panel timing test, cold start to first render, https://www.agent-verdict.com/scoring, verified 2026-08-10 FAQ: - Q: Is Bolt.new faster than the other AI app builders? A: On cold start to first interactive render, yes. The toolchain runs in your browser rather than a remote container, which removes the wait most competitors have. - Q: What happens to your project if you stop paying? A: The code is exportable to GitHub or a zip at any time, so a lapsed subscription costs you the hosted environment rather than the work. Opinions (3): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 900/1000, 176 found useful, 2026-08-10: We timed cold start to first interactive render across the board, five runs each. Bolt won every run, and the gap is not marginal because there is no remote container to provision. Where it gave points back was token spend during debugging and a default aesthetic that needs explicit direction in the prompt. - Kasia Nowak (@kasia_dev) [Editor panel], score 910/1000, 122 found useful, 2026-08-14: The no cold start thing sounds like a detail until you have reloaded a project forty times in an afternoon. Then it is the whole product. I keep a Bolt tab open the way I used to keep a terminal open. - Ravi Menon (@ravibuilds) [Editor panel], score 840/1000, 74 found useful, 2026-08-16: Fast, yes. But my browser tab was using three gigabytes by the end of a real project and the token budget went in four days. Great for spikes and prototypes, awkward as the place a client project actually lives. --- ## Codex CLI URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/codex-cli Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/codex-cli/opinions Official site: https://openai.com/codex Category: coding agent or LLM Tier: A Community score: 851 of 1000 Votes: 2288 total, 1947 up, 341 down Board rank: 3 Trend this week: up 2 Head to head record: 7 wins, 5 losses Price from: 21 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-17 Codex CLI leans on isolation. Tasks run in a sandbox, several can run at once, and the diff comes back for review rather than landing straight in your working tree. Voters who fan out repetitive work across a repository rate that model highly, and it climbed a place this week. The cost is friction: the sandbox has to be told about your environment, and anything that needs live services takes configuration the terminal native competitors do not. Pricing: Included with ChatGPT plans starting around 21 EUR per month, with API pricing for programmatic use and higher tiers for heavy parallel usage. Strengths: - Sandboxed execution, nothing runs on your machine by default - Parallel task execution across a repository - Diff review before anything lands Weaknesses: - Sandbox needs environment configuration - Live service access takes extra setup - Less repository intuition than the leaders Features: - Sandboxed task execution - Parallel agent runs - Diff based review flow - CLI and cloud task surfaces - GitHub integration Sources: - OpenAI Codex product page, https://openai.com/codex, verified 2026-08-17 FAQ: - Q: Why does Codex CLI score well on reliability? A: Because it runs in a sandbox and shows you a diff before anything lands, which means fewer surprise edits to review after the fact. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 855/1000, 104 found useful, 2026-08-14: Sandboxing plus a diff to review before anything lands is the most conservative execution model in the category, and it shows in the reliability votes. Fanning six mechanical tasks out in parallel is a genuine advantage. Telling the sandbox about our environment took real setup time. - Ana Sousa (@anasousa) [Editor panel], score 840/1000, 77 found useful, 2026-08-17: Nothing touches my working tree until I say so, which is exactly what I want from an agent. Parallel runs turned a two day migration into an afternoon of reviewing diffs. --- ## GitHub Copilot URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/github-copilot Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/github-copilot/opinions Official site: https://github.com/features/copilot Category: coding agent or LLM Tier: A Community score: 812 of 1000 Votes: 2604 total, 2114 up, 490 down Board rank: 4 Trend this week: down 1 Head to head record: 8 wins, 7 losses Price from: 9 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-16 Copilot wins on distribution and on the fact that it is already approved wherever GitHub is. Pull request review, issue to pull request agents and editor completion all sit where the work already happens, and the enterprise story is the most complete on the board. Voters rate the raw agent quality a step behind the leaders and the completion latency inconsistent, which puts it at the top of A tier rather than in S. Pricing: Free tier with monthly completion and chat limits. Paid plans start around 9 EUR per month per user, the cheapest serious option on the coding agent board, with business and enterprise tiers. Strengths: - Cheapest credible option on the coding agent board - Native pull request and issue workflows - Strongest enterprise and compliance story - Works in every major editor Weaknesses: - Agent quality a step behind the leaders - Completion latency is inconsistent - Best features are spread across several surfaces Features: - Editor completions and chat - Coding agent that opens pull requests - Pull request review - Custom instructions per repository - Enterprise policy controls Sources: - GitHub Copilot features page, https://github.com/features/copilot, verified 2026-08-16 FAQ: - Q: Is GitHub Copilot still worth it in 2026? A: For teams already on GitHub, yes, mostly for the pull request and issue workflows. On pure agent quality the board ranks two competitors above it. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 815/1000, 112 found useful, 2026-08-14: The pull request and issue workflows are the real product now, and nothing else on the board is native to where the code already lives. Raw agent quality is a step behind the leaders on our multi file tests, and completion latency varied more than we expected. - Chris Walton (@cwalton) [Editor panel], score 830/1000, 88 found useful, 2026-08-16: It is the one our security team already approved, which beats a better tool we cannot use. Nine euros a seat and the review workflows mean it earns its place even though it does not win the agent comparisons. --- ## Framer URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/framer Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/framer/opinions Official site: https://framer.com Category: AI app builder Tier: S Community score: 889 of 1000 Votes: 2564 total, 2279 up, 285 down Board rank: 4 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 9 wins, 3 losses Price from: 5 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-17 Framer was a professional visual site builder before it had an AI feature, and it shows. Describe a site or start from a template and the AI mode lays out real, responsive pages using Framer's own component and animation system, not a static mockup. Voters rank it just under the app builders on design because a Framer site is still marketing pages and content sites rather than a database backed application, but for that job the output is close to hand built quality and the visual editor after generation is the best on the board. Pricing: Free tier for a single Framer subdomain site. Paid plans start around 5 EUR per month for a custom domain, with higher tiers adding CMS collections, localisation and team seats. Strengths: - AI generated layouts are production quality, not throwaway drafts - Best in class visual editor for refining what the AI produced - CMS collections and animations built in, no plugins needed Weaknesses: - Marketing sites and content, not a database backed application - No real backend logic or authenticated user accounts - SEO plugins and integrations lag the WordPress ecosystem Features: - Prompt to responsive site with real components - Visual canvas editing after generation - Built in CMS collections - One click publish with custom domains Sources: - Framer pricing page, https://framer.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-17 FAQ: - Q: Can Framer replace an app builder like Lovable or Totalum? A: No. Framer generates and hosts sites, not applications with a database and authenticated users. It sits on this board because voters compare it directly for marketing pages and content sites, where it beats most app builders on polish. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 895/1000, 148 found useful, 2026-08-15: We ran the same marketing site brief we run on every tool: a five page consultancy site with a blog and a contact form. Framer was the only entry whose first draft needed no design cleanup at all, animations included. It is not competing for the application brief though, no accounts and no real backend, so it is judged here purely as a site tool and it is the best one on the board at that job. - Talia Brandt (@taliab) [Editor panel], score 910/1000, 121 found useful, 2026-08-17: I moved three client sites off WordPress onto Framer this quarter and none of them have needed a plugin update since. The AI mode drafts something close to final on the first try more often than any tool I have used, including the older no code builders. My only real complaint is that clients occasionally ask for a database backed feature and I have to explain that this is not that kind of tool. --- ## v0 URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/v0 Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/v0/opinions Official site: https://v0.app Category: AI app builder Tier: S Community score: 884 of 1000 Votes: 3355 total, 2966 up, 389 down Board rank: 5 Trend this week: down 1 Head to head record: 10 wins, 6 losses Price from: 17 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-15 v0 produces the most idiomatic React the board has voted on. Output lands as shadcn and Tailwind components a senior engineer would accept in review, which is why it dominates the code quality conversation even when it loses on breadth. The Vercel deploy path is one click and the design taste is genuinely good. Where it slips on this board is scope: it is happiest generating interfaces and front end flows, and full application backends are a weaker story than the database first competitors. Pricing: Free tier with monthly credits. Paid plans start around 17 EUR per month, with credit based usage on top and team plans for shared projects. Deploying to Vercel is included in the flow. Strengths: - Cleanest generated React and Tailwind on the board - shadcn component conventions out of the box - One click Vercel deploy - Excellent design taste with almost no prompting Weaknesses: - Front end leaning, full backends are a weaker story - Credit model gets expensive on long iteration - Opinionated stack, awkward if you are not on React Features: - Prompt to React component and page generation - shadcn and Tailwind output - Design to code from images and Figma - Vercel deploy and preview URLs - Code export and npm registry blocks Sources: - v0 official site, https://v0.app, verified 2026-08-15 - Vercel v0 documentation, https://vercel.com/docs, verified 2026-08-12 FAQ: - Q: Is v0 a full app builder or a UI generator? A: Both, but the centre of gravity is the interface. It generates production grade React and Tailwind, and it is the strongest option on the board if the interface is the hard part of your project. - Q: Can you use v0 output outside Vercel? A: Yes. The output is standard React, Tailwind and shadcn, so it runs anywhere Node runs. Opinions (3): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 890/1000, 159 found useful, 2026-08-12: Best code quality on the board, measured the boring way: we reviewed the diffs. Component boundaries, prop types and Tailwind usage were the closest to what we would have written by hand. Scope is the limit. Ask for a full application with a real backend and it is competing out of its weight class. - Lena Hoffmann (@lenacodes) [Editor panel], score 900/1000, 131 found useful, 2026-08-15: This is the only one whose output goes into our repository without a rewrite. It reads like our codebase because it uses the same shadcn conventions. I do not use it to build products, I use it to build the two screens a sprint that are actually hard. - Marco Bellini (@mbellini) [Editor panel], score 790/1000, 61 found useful, 2026-08-16: Beautiful components, and then I had no idea what to do with them. If you cannot wire a backend yourself this is the wrong end of the board for you. It assumes you are a developer, and it is honest about that. --- ## Windsurf URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/windsurf Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/windsurf/opinions Official site: https://windsurf.com Category: coding agent or LLM Tier: B Community score: 736 of 1000 Votes: 1489 total, 1096 up, 393 down Board rank: 5 Trend this week: down 1 Head to head record: 5 wins, 8 losses Price from: 13 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-14 Windsurf built its reputation on Cascade, an agent that follows what you are doing rather than waiting to be briefed, and on a free tier more generous than anything comparable. Voters still rate the flow model highly. The board marks it down for a turbulent year of corporate change and for model access that has shifted underneath users more than once, which is what cost it a place this week. Pricing: Generous free tier. Paid plans start around 13 EUR per month with credit based usage on top and team tiers above that. Strengths: - Cascade flow model follows your work without briefing - Most generous free tier in the category - Clean, fast editor Weaknesses: - Model availability has changed under users - Corporate turbulence has cost it trust votes - Weaker on very large repositories Features: - Cascade agentic flow - Inline completions and command mode - MCP support - Editor and JetBrains plugins Sources: - Windsurf official site, https://windsurf.com, verified 2026-08-14 FAQ: - Q: Is Windsurf still a safe pick? A: The product is good and the free tier is the best in the category. The board's trust votes are the weak spot, driven by model access changing under existing users. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 740/1000, 69 found useful, 2026-08-14: Cascade is still a genuinely good idea and the free tier is the most generous in the category. The trust votes are the problem: model availability changing under existing users came up repeatedly in comments, and that is what moved it down a place this week. - Felix Braun (@felixb) [Editor panel], score 760/1000, 51 found useful, 2026-08-16: As someone with no budget the free tier is why I have an agent at all. It follows what I am doing without me explaining, which is nice. I have had to change which model I use twice and that was not fun. --- ## Gemini CLI URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/gemini-cli Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/gemini-cli/opinions Official site: https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli Category: coding agent or LLM Tier: B Community score: 704 of 1000 Votes: 1122 total, 790 up, 332 down Board rank: 6 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 4 wins, 7 losses Price from: 0 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-15 Gemini CLI is the value pick on the coding agent board. It is open source, it runs in your terminal, the free allowance is real, and the context window swallows large codebases in one pass. That combination keeps it in contention despite a thin integration story. Voters are less positive about consistency across runs and about tool calling reliability, which keeps it in B tier despite the price. Pricing: Free with a generous daily request allowance on a personal Google account. Paid API usage and higher tiers are available for heavier or commercial workloads. Strengths: - Free daily allowance that is actually usable - Open source and auditable - Very large context window for whole repository passes Weaknesses: - Run to run consistency is uneven - Tool calling is less reliable than the leaders - Fewer editor integrations Features: - Terminal native agent - Very large context window - MCP support - Open source codebase - Free tier on a personal account Sources: - Gemini CLI repository, https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli, verified 2026-08-15 FAQ: - Q: Is Gemini CLI really free? A: There is a genuine daily request allowance on a personal account, which is why it takes the value axis on the coding agent board. Heavy or commercial use moves you to paid API pricing. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 705/1000, 58 found useful, 2026-08-15: The context window genuinely swallows a whole repository in one pass, and the free allowance is real rather than a trial. Consistency is the issue: the same prompt on the same repository gave us noticeably different quality across runs, and tool calling failed more often than the leaders. - Diego Ramos (@dramos) [Editor panel], score 720/1000, 46 found useful, 2026-08-17: Open source, free tier, runs in my terminal. For triaging issues on a repository I do not know well, dumping the whole thing into context and asking questions is worth the inconsistency. --- ## Firebase Studio URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/firebase-studio Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/firebase-studio/opinions Official site: https://firebase.studio Category: AI app builder Tier: S Community score: 881 of 1000 Votes: 2247 total, 1980 up, 267 down Board rank: 6 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 7 wins, 4 losses Price from: 0 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-16 Firebase Studio is a full cloud workspace rather than a chat box: a prompt drafts an app, and from there you have a real VS Code style editor, terminal and preview alongside the agent. Firebase and Genkit are wired in without a service account detour, which is what carries its integrations votes. Voters mark it down against the design leaders because the App Prototyping Agent's first render is competent rather than distinctive, and the workspace has more moving parts than a builder aimed at a non technical founder. Pricing: Free to use on a Google account with Firebase's standard usage based pricing for the backend services a project consumes. No separate subscription for the workspace itself. Strengths: - Full cloud IDE, not just a chat window, so you can drop into real code - Firebase and Genkit integration with no separate service account setup - Free workspace, you only pay for the backend usage you generate Weaknesses: - First render is competent rather than distinctive on design votes - More interface to learn than a single purpose builder - Tied to the Firebase and Google Cloud ecosystem Features: - App Prototyping Agent from a text or image prompt - Full VS Code style cloud IDE - Native Firebase and Genkit wiring - Multi framework support including Next.js and Flutter Sources: - Firebase Studio documentation, https://firebase.studio, verified 2026-08-16 FAQ: - Q: Do I need to know Firebase to use it? A: No, the agent wires up the backend it needs as it builds. Knowing Firebase helps once you drop into the code editor to make changes by hand, which the workspace expects you will eventually do. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 860/1000, 132 found useful, 2026-08-14: Google gave us a full cloud IDE rather than a chat box, and once you are inside it the Firebase and Genkit wiring really does skip the usual service account detour. The App Prototyping Agent's first render was competent on every brief we threw at it and distinctive on none of them, which is the one thing keeping it out of the very top of S tier. - Priyanka Oswal (@priyanka_o) [Editor panel], score 850/1000, 69 found useful, 2026-08-16: If your stack is already Firebase this is close to a free lunch, a real editor and a real agent for the price of the backend you would pay for anyway. The interface has more going on than I wanted when I just needed a quick prototype, and I found myself using maybe a third of what the workspace offers. --- ## Webflow URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/webflow Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/webflow/opinions Official site: https://webflow.com Category: AI app builder Tier: A Community score: 871 of 1000 Votes: 3103 total, 2703 up, 400 down Board rank: 7 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 11 wins, 6 losses Price from: 14 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-17 Webflow's AI site generator is the newest part of a platform that was already shipping production marketing sites for large teams. Describe a site and it drafts pages in Webflow's own visual canvas, which means the output is real semantic HTML and CSS rather than a locked template. The CMS is the most mature on this board for content heavy sites. It scores below the newer app builders on raw generation speed and taste, because the AI layer is additive to an existing visual tool rather than built around the prompt from day one. Pricing: Free to build and preview. Published sites start around 14 EUR per month, with CMS, business and enterprise tiers scaling by traffic, CMS items and team seats. Strengths: - Real semantic HTML and CSS output, not a proprietary lock in - Most mature CMS on the board for content heavy sites - Huge library of components, interactions and integrations Weaknesses: - AI generation is a layer on an existing tool, not designed around the prompt - Steeper learning curve than a pure prompt to app builder - No real application backend or authenticated accounts Features: - AI site generation into the visual canvas - Mature CMS with dynamic collections - Semantic, exportable HTML and CSS - Localisation and enterprise publishing controls Sources: - Webflow pricing page, https://webflow.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-17 FAQ: - Q: Is Webflow an app builder or a website builder? A: A website builder with a content management system. It has no database backed application layer, which is why it sits in A tier here rather than competing directly with Lovable or Totalum on the same brief. Opinions (2): - Marcus Delacroix (@mdelacroix) [Editor panel], score 890/1000, 143 found useful, 2026-08-16: Ten years of Webflow habits do not disappear because there is now a prompt box. I use the generator to skip the blank page and then do what I always did, work in the canvas. For a content heavy site with a real editorial workflow this still beats anything that only knows how to generate once. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 845/1000, 118 found useful, 2026-08-13: Webflow's CMS is still the most capable content model on this board, and the AI generator drops a competent draft straight into the visual canvas you would already be editing in. It reads like what it is, an AI layer added onto a mature tool rather than built around the prompt, and voters comparing raw generation speed against the newer builders noticed the gap. --- ## Replit URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/replit Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/replit/opinions Official site: https://replit.com Category: AI app builder Tier: A Community score: 842 of 1000 Votes: 2967 total, 2498 up, 469 down Board rank: 8 Trend this week: down 3 Head to head record: 9 wins, 8 losses Price from: 22 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-16 Replit is the only entry here that is a full development environment first and an agent second, and that shows in the votes. You get a real shell, real databases, object storage, deployments and a package ecosystem, with the Agent driving on top. It handles long lived projects better than most because you can always drop into the terminal and fix things by hand. Voters penalise it on design, where the generated interfaces are serviceable rather than striking, and on cost predictability once the Agent starts running effort heavy tasks. Pricing: Free tier with limited Agent usage. Core plans start around 22 EUR per month including a monthly credit allowance, with usage based Agent charges and separate deployment costs beyond that. Strengths: - Real cloud IDE with shell access behind the agent - Managed Postgres, object storage and deployments included - Handles long lived, multi week projects well - Strong multiplayer and education story Weaknesses: - Generated design is functional rather than striking - Agent usage costs are hard to forecast - Interface is heavy if all you want is a prompt box Features: - Replit Agent for prompt driven building - Full cloud IDE with terminal - Managed Postgres database and object storage - Autoscale and reserved VM deployments - Secrets management - Multiplayer editing - Mobile app for on the go edits Sources: - Replit official pricing, https://replit.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-16 - Replit documentation, Agent, https://docs.replit.com, verified 2026-08-14 FAQ: - Q: Is Replit good for beginners in 2026? A: Yes for learning and for projects where you want an escape hatch into a real terminal. It is heavier than a pure prompt box, which is the trade you make for that control. - Q: Why is Replit in A tier and not S? A: Design carries 22 points on this board and Replit loses that axis to the design led builders. It scores well on reliability and integrations, which keeps it at the top of A tier. Opinions (3): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 850/1000, 138 found useful, 2026-08-11: The only entry where a failed agent run is recoverable in thirty seconds, because you drop into a shell and fix it. That is worth a lot on reliability. It gives the points back on design, where the output is serviceable, and on cost, where the effort based Agent pricing is genuinely hard to forecast. - Sofia Alarcon (@sofia_a) [Editor panel], score 880/1000, 104 found useful, 2026-08-13: For teaching there is nothing close. Students see the agent write code and then see the code run in a real environment they can break. The Postgres and object storage being right there means we never spend a lesson on service accounts. - Ben Hartley (@benh) [Editor panel], score 800/1000, 66 found useful, 2026-08-16: We moved off it because the Agent spend was unpredictable enough to be a finance conversation. The platform itself is solid and I still use it for spikes. Just watch the effort based billing before you hand it to a team. --- ## Figma Make URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/figma-make Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/figma-make/opinions Official site: https://figma.com Category: AI app builder Tier: A Community score: 838 of 1000 Votes: 1856 total, 1555 up, 301 down Board rank: 9 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 6 wins, 5 losses Price from: 0 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-16 Figma Make sits inside the design tool most product teams already use, so a Figma file becomes an interactive React prototype without a handoff document. Voters who work design to code rate it highest on that specific transition, since it respects components and variables from the original file. It trails the dedicated app builders on reliability once a prototype needs to become a real shipped application with a persistent database, which is a different job than the one Figma Make is built for. Pricing: Included with a Figma seat that has Make access. No separate subscription, usage is bundled into existing Figma plans. Strengths: - Genuinely useful when you already have a Figma design to start from - Respects components and variables from the source file - Fastest design to clickable prototype path on the board Weaknesses: - Weaker once a prototype needs a persistent database and real users - Only useful if your team already works in Figma - Export and self hosting story is thinner than the standalone builders Features: - Prompt or Figma file to interactive prototype - Component and variable aware generation - Live in the same tab as the design file - Shareable preview links for stakeholder review Sources: - Figma Make product page, https://figma.com, verified 2026-08-16 FAQ: - Q: Does Figma Make replace a developer handoff? A: For a clickable prototype, largely yes. For a production application with a real backend, no. Voters use it to compress the design review loop, then hand a finished brief to a developer or a full app builder. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 820/1000, 94 found useful, 2026-08-12: Point it at an existing Figma file and it respects components and variables better than any prompt to code tool we tested, which is a genuinely different job than starting from nothing. Ask it to become a real shipped application with a persistent database and it runs out of road fast, exactly as its own weaknesses list suggests. - Rosa Delgado (@rosad) [Editor panel], score 855/1000, 77 found useful, 2026-08-15: We use it to compress design review from days to an afternoon: file goes in, clickable prototype comes out, stakeholders click through in the same meeting. It has never once been how we ship the real thing, that handoff always goes to a developer or another builder further up this board. --- ## Wix URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/wix Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/wix/opinions Official site: https://wix.com Category: AI app builder Tier: A Community score: 823 of 1000 Votes: 2789 total, 2295 up, 494 down Board rank: 10 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 8 wins, 9 losses Price from: 16 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-17 Wix's AI site generator asks a handful of questions and produces a full multi page site with stock content already in place, which is why it wins the value and ease of use votes among non technical builders. It is not aimed at developers: the output lives entirely inside the Wix hosted ecosystem and there is no code export. Reliability votes are solid for the huge install base it already runs, but voters mark it down against the newer builders for feeling like a website tool with app features added rather than the other way round. Pricing: Free tier with Wix branding. Paid plans start around 16 EUR per month removing ads and adding a custom domain, with business and commerce tiers scaling from there. Strengths: - Fastest path from nothing to a published, presentable site - Huge app market for adding bookings, stores and forms - Reliable hosting with a very large existing install base Weaknesses: - Fully hosted, no code export or self hosting option - Feels like a website builder with app features added on - Migrating off the platform later means a rebuild Features: - AI site generator from a short questionnaire - Large third party app marketplace - Built in bookings, stores and forms - Managed hosting with no server setup Sources: - Wix pricing page, https://wix.com/premium, verified 2026-08-17 FAQ: - Q: Can I export a Wix site to run it elsewhere? A: No. Wix is a fully hosted platform with no code export, which is the main reason developer focused voters rank it below the builders that hand you a real codebase. Opinions (2): - Greg Halvorsen (@greghal) [Editor panel], score 840/1000, 132 found useful, 2026-08-16: I run a small landscaping business and I do not want to think about hosting, ever. Wix's AI generator got me a site I was not embarrassed to send customers to in about twenty minutes. I have no plans to ever export it anywhere, so the lock in complaint developers make does not land for someone in my position. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 790/1000, 101 found useful, 2026-08-13: A short questionnaire produced a full multi page site with stock content already filled in faster than anything else aimed at a non technical builder. It is also the most locked in entry we tested: fully hosted, no code export, and migrating later means starting over. Fine for what it is, worth knowing before you commit. --- ## Base44 URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/base44 Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/base44/opinions Official site: https://base44.com Category: AI app builder Tier: A Community score: 806 of 1000 Votes: 2143 total, 1727 up, 416 down Board rank: 11 Trend this week: down 5 Head to head record: 7 wins, 6 losses Price from: 16 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-15 Base44 bets on convention over configuration and it pays off for internal tools. Database, auth, email, file storage and analytics are already connected when your first screen appears, so the usual second afternoon of plumbing simply does not happen. Voters who build CRUD heavy business apps rate it near the top of A tier and it is the biggest climber on the board this week. The trade is control: the opinionated stack is excellent until you want something it did not anticipate, and then the exits are narrow. Pricing: Free tier with a monthly message allowance. Paid plans start around 16 EUR per month and scale by messages, seats and included integrations. Hosting and the bundled backend services are part of the plan. Strengths: - Auth, database, email and storage wired from the first screen - Excellent fit for internal and CRUD heavy tools - Very low setup friction, no service accounts to create - Fastest climber on the board this week Weaknesses: - Opinionated stack is hard to escape - Code export is less complete than the developer first options - Design output is competent but rarely distinctive Features: - Built in auth with roles - Managed database with a visual editor - Transactional email sending - File and image storage - Usage analytics dashboard - Custom domains Sources: - Base44 official site, https://base44.com, verified 2026-08-15 - Agent Verdict panel build test, inventory tool, https://www.agent-verdict.com/scoring, verified 2026-08-11 FAQ: - Q: What is Base44 best at? A: Internal tools and CRUD heavy business apps where the backend plumbing is the boring part. It arrives already connected, which is worth more than raw model quality for that job. - Q: Why did Base44 climb three places this week? A: A run of integrations votes and a strong week on the value axis. The weekly deltas and the reasons behind them are published on the movers page. Opinions (3): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 810/1000, 121 found useful, 2026-08-11: The inventory tool test took eleven minutes end to end including auth and an email notification, which is the fastest complete internal tool on the board. Nothing to connect, no service accounts. The mark against it is the exit: our attempt to add a non standard approval flow ran straight into the opinionated stack. - Hannah Weiss (@hweiss) [Editor panel], score 830/1000, 92 found useful, 2026-08-14: I am not a developer and I have four working internal tools. The fact that login and email just exist is the entire reason. I have never once looked at a database URL and I would like to keep it that way. - Jules Martin (@julesm) [Editor panel], score 750/1000, 58 found useful, 2026-08-16: Great until a client wants something it did not anticipate, and then you are working against the platform instead of with it. Export is thinner than the developer first options. Know what you are signing up for and it is an easy A tier pick. --- ## Magic Patterns URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/magic-patterns Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/magic-patterns/opinions Official site: https://magicpatterns.com Category: AI app builder Tier: A Community score: 802 of 1000 Votes: 1432 total, 1148 up, 284 down Board rank: 12 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 5 wins, 4 losses Price from: 25 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-15 Magic Patterns generates front end only, and it is unapologetic about that scope: components come out as clean React and Tailwind that voters report pasting straight into an existing codebase without a rewrite pass. It reads a Figma file or a screenshot as well as a prompt, which developer voters use to skip the blank page on a new screen. It cannot wire a backend or manage state across a real application, so it scores below the full app builders on scope even though its code quality votes are close to the top of the board. Pricing: Free tier with limited generations. Paid plans start around 25 EUR per month for higher generation limits, private projects and team sharing. Strengths: - Clean React and Tailwind output that drops into an existing codebase - Reads a screenshot or Figma file, not just a text prompt - Fast iteration loop for a single screen or component Weaknesses: - Front end only, no backend or persistent data - Not aimed at shipping a complete application on its own - Design taste on a prompt with no reference image is inconsistent Features: - Prompt, screenshot or Figma file to component - React and Tailwind output tuned for real codebases - Variant generation for quick exploration - Team libraries for shared components Sources: - Magic Patterns pricing page, https://magicpatterns.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-15 FAQ: - Q: Is Magic Patterns a full app builder? A: No, it generates front end components and screens only. Voters use it alongside a backend or a full app builder rather than instead of one. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 815/1000, 88 found useful, 2026-08-11: Best code quality we saw outside v0, clean React and Tailwind that pasted into our own repository without a rewrite pass. It is unapologetically front end only, no backend, no state across screens, so it is scored here as a component generator rather than an app builder, which is the right way to judge it. - Sam Okafor (@samokafor) [Editor panel], score 780/1000, 54 found useful, 2026-08-14: I feed it a screenshot of a competitor's screen more often than a text prompt, and it is the fastest way I have found to skip a blank file. Design taste on a bare text prompt with no reference image is a coin flip, so I always give it something to look at. --- ## Manus URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/manus Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/manus/opinions Official site: https://manus.im Category: AI app builder Tier: A Community score: 794 of 1000 Votes: 1975 total, 1568 up, 407 down Board rank: 13 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 6 wins, 6 losses Price from: 39 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-16 Manus is not an app builder first, it is an autonomous agent that can browse, write files and run code unattended, and building a small application is one of the tasks it handles well. Agent performance votes are strong: it plans a multi step brief, executes it with minimal check ins and reports back with a working result more often than most dedicated builders. Voters mark it down on design and integrations specifically for app work, since a purpose built app builder still produces a cleaner first render and simpler deploy story. Pricing: Credit based pricing with a limited free allowance. Paid plans start around 39 EUR per month for a monthly credit balance that scales with task complexity. Strengths: - Genuinely autonomous on multi step briefs with minimal check ins - Not limited to app building, useful for research and automation too - Reports back with a clear summary of what it did and why Weaknesses: - Credit spend is hard to predict on a long unattended run - First render is behind the dedicated app builders on design - Deploy and hosting story is less polished than a purpose built tool Features: - Autonomous multi step task execution - Web browsing and file system access during a run - App scaffolding and deployment as one of its skills - Run summaries explaining what was done Sources: - Manus pricing page, https://manus.im/pricing, verified 2026-08-16 FAQ: - Q: Why is a general purpose agent on an app builder board? A: Enough voters use it specifically to build and ship small applications that it earns a row here. It is judged on the same ten axes as the dedicated builders, and it holds its own on agent performance while losing ground on design and integrations. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 800/1000, 109 found useful, 2026-08-12: Handed the same forty minute unattended brief every long horizon agent got, it planned, executed and reported back with a clear summary of what it did and why, more consistently than the app builders that claim similar autonomy. Design and integrations lag the dedicated builders specifically for app work, which tracks with it being a general agent that happens to be good at this rather than an app builder first. - Noah Fischer (@noahf) [Editor panel], score 820/1000, 91 found useful, 2026-08-16: I brief it before a client call and it has usually made real progress by the time I am back, on research tasks and on small apps alike. The credit spend on a long unattended run is genuinely hard to predict in advance, so I now budget for the worst case rather than the estimate. --- ## Emergent URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/emergent Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/emergent/opinions Official site: https://emergent.sh Category: AI app builder Tier: A Community score: 781 of 1000 Votes: 1688 total, 1318 up, 370 down Board rank: 14 Trend this week: down 7 Head to head record: 6 wins, 7 losses Price from: 18 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-14 Emergent is the most agentic entry in A tier. Hand it a multi step brief and it plans, executes and self corrects over a long run rather than asking you a question every thirty seconds, which is why it takes the agent performance axis in several head to head matchups. When the plan is right the output is impressive for the effort involved. When the plan is wrong you find out late, and voters mark it down for exactly that, along with a first render that needs a design pass. Pricing: Credit based pricing with a free trial allowance. Paid plans start around 18 EUR per month, and long autonomous runs consume credits quickly because the agent keeps working without prompting. Strengths: - Genuine long horizon autonomy, minimal babysitting - Plans and self corrects across multi step tasks - Handles backend and integration work other builders punt on Weaknesses: - A wrong plan is expensive because you find out late - First render needs a deliberate design pass - Credit burn on autonomous runs is unpredictable Features: - Autonomous multi step task execution - Self correcting build loop - Full stack scaffolding with backend logic - Deploy targets and custom domains - GitHub export Sources: - Emergent official site, https://emergent.sh, verified 2026-08-14 - Agent Verdict panel autonomy test, 40 minute unattended run, https://www.agent-verdict.com/scoring, verified 2026-08-10 FAQ: - Q: What does agent performance mean on this board? A: It measures how far a tool gets on a multi step brief without a human intervening, and how well it recovers from its own mistakes. It carries 11 points of the 100. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 790/1000, 108 found useful, 2026-08-10: Forty minute unattended run, no intervention, and it shipped a working multi step flow with backend logic other builders skipped. Then a second run misread the brief in the first three minutes and we paid for thirty seven more before finding out. That variance is the whole story: highest ceiling in A tier, widest spread. - Ade Balogun (@adeb) [Editor panel], score 810/1000, 79 found useful, 2026-08-14: I brief it, I go to a meeting, I come back to real progress. Nothing else on this board does that yet. You learn to write the brief very carefully, because a vague brief is an expensive brief. --- ## Subframe URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/subframe Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/subframe/opinions Official site: https://subframe.com Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 774 of 1000 Votes: 1288 total, 997 up, 291 down Board rank: 15 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 4 wins, 5 losses Price from: 25 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-15 Subframe is aimed squarely at developers who want a visual builder without the usual trade off of throwaway output. You lay out screens on a canvas with real components and it generates React and Tailwind code that matches how a developer would structure it by hand. It tops the B band on code quality votes for that reason. Reliability drops once a project needs custom backend logic beyond CRUD, which is the ceiling voters keep hitting on anything past a dashboard or admin screen. Pricing: Free tier for a single project. Paid plans start around 25 EUR per month adding more projects, component libraries and team seats. Strengths: - Real React and Tailwind output structured the way a developer would write it - Visual canvas without the usual throwaway code trade off - Strong component library to start a screen from Weaknesses: - Ceiling appears fast once logic goes beyond CRUD - Smaller template and component ecosystem than the design led leaders - Best suited to admin screens and dashboards specifically Features: - Visual canvas producing real React and Tailwind - Component library built for developer handoff - Data binding for CRUD style screens - Design tokens synced with an existing design system Sources: - Subframe pricing page, https://subframe.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-15 FAQ: - Q: Who is Subframe built for? A: Developers who want a visual head start on admin panels and dashboards without inheriting messy generated code. It is not aimed at non technical founders the way Base44 or Lovable are. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 760/1000, 69 found useful, 2026-08-11: Best code quality in B tier, clearly. The visual canvas produces React and Tailwind structured the way a developer would actually write it, and admin screens and dashboards came together fast. The ceiling arrives quickly once logic goes past CRUD, which is the same story voters told us in the comments. - Callum Reid (@callumr) [Editor panel], score 745/1000, 58 found useful, 2026-08-15: We use it for every internal dashboard now because the generated code does not embarrass anyone in review. It is not what I would reach for if a non technical founder wanted to build their own product; the component library and template gallery are both a lot smaller than the design led leaders. --- ## Genspark URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/genspark Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/genspark/opinions Official site: https://genspark.ai Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 762 of 1000 Votes: 1064 total, 811 up, 253 down Board rank: 16 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 3 wins, 4 losses Price from: 19 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-14 Genspark's pitch is breadth: one agent that drafts slides, spreadsheets, research documents and small web apps from the same interface. For app building specifically it is capable but generalist, producing working single page tools faster than it produces anything with real data persistence. Voters who use it across several of those formats rate the convenience highly, while voters comparing it purely as an app builder mark it down against tools that only do one job. Pricing: Free tier with daily credit limits across all formats. Paid plans start around 19 EUR per month for a larger shared credit pool. Strengths: - One tool covers slides, sheets, documents and small apps - Fast for a single page tool or internal utility - Generous free tier for occasional use Weaknesses: - Generalist scope means app building is not its sharpest skill - Data persistence and backend logic are shallow - Credits are shared across every format, so heavy use runs out fast Features: - Prompt to app, slide deck, sheet or document - Shared credit pool across all output formats - Web browsing during generation for research tasks - Quick single page app scaffolding Sources: - Genspark pricing page, https://genspark.ai/pricing, verified 2026-08-14 FAQ: - Q: Is Genspark a serious option for a real application? A: For a single page internal tool, yes. For an application with real data relationships and user accounts, voters consistently point to a dedicated app builder instead. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 745/1000, 61 found useful, 2026-08-10: Genspark's breadth is real: the same interface drafted slides, a sheet and a small working tool in one session, which nothing else on this board attempts. Judged purely as an app builder it is a generalist competing against specialists, and it showed on anything needing real data persistence, which is thin. - Lior Ben-David (@liorbd) [Editor panel], score 770/1000, 48 found useful, 2026-08-13: I use it across formats in the same week, which is the entire pitch and it delivers on that. The shared credit pool is the catch: a heavy week on slides eats into what I have left for the app I actually wanted to build. --- ## Banani URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/banani Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/banani/opinions Official site: https://banani.co Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 755 of 1000 Votes: 892 total, 673 up, 219 down Board rank: 17 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 3 wins, 3 losses Price from: 20 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-13 Banani generates high fidelity app mockups from a prompt, closer to a design tool than a builder: the screens look like a real product but there is no working code behind them by default. Design votes are respectable for how quickly it produces a believable set of screens to react to. It scores low on scope and reliability because voters testing the same brief every other tool on this board completed could not walk away with a working application, only a clickable design. Pricing: Free tier for a limited number of screens. Paid plans start around 20 EUR per month for unlimited projects and export options. Strengths: - Fast, believable app mockups from a short prompt - Good starting point for a pitch deck or early user testing - Mobile and web layouts handled equally well Weaknesses: - No working application behind the mockups by default - Does not complete the board's working application brief - Best treated as a design step before a real build Features: - Prompt to high fidelity app mockup - Mobile and web screen templates - Clickable prototype export for testing - Design system consistency across screens Sources: - Banani pricing page, https://banani.co/pricing, verified 2026-08-13 FAQ: - Q: Does Banani produce a working app? A: Not by default. It produces high fidelity mockups and clickable prototypes, which is why it sits in B tier rather than alongside the builders that ship a working backend. Opinions (2): - Zara Ahmed (@zaraa) [Editor panel], score 800/1000, 63 found useful, 2026-08-12: For getting a believable set of screens in front of investors before a single line of code exists, this is exactly the right tool and I use it every time. I would never confuse it with something that ships, and neither does Banani's own marketing. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 700/1000, 52 found useful, 2026-08-09: High fidelity mockups, genuinely fast, and completely honest that there is no working code behind them by default. We could not walk away from the standard board brief with a working application, which is what every B tier and above entry is judged on, so it scores accordingly even though the design output itself is good. --- ## Rork URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/rork Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/rork/opinions Official site: https://rork.com Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 748 of 1000 Votes: 1156 total, 865 up, 291 down Board rank: 18 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 3 wins, 4 losses Price from: 20 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-14 Rork's whole reason to exist is generating actual React Native apps rather than a web page in a mobile shell, and it earns its scope votes for that. A prompt produces a working Expo project you can preview on a real device within minutes. It loses ground on reliability once the brief needs custom native modules or complex backend logic, where voters report needing to finish the work by hand in the exported project. Pricing: Free tier with limited generations. Paid plans start around 20 EUR per month for more generations and app store deployment support. Strengths: - Genuine React Native output, not a web view wrapper - Preview on a real device within minutes of a prompt - Expo based export that a mobile developer can keep working in Weaknesses: - Custom native modules still need manual work - Backend logic beyond simple data is shallow - Smaller community than the general purpose app builders Features: - Prompt to Expo based React Native app - Live device preview via QR code - App store submission guidance - Exportable project for manual native work Sources: - Rork pricing page, https://rork.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-14 FAQ: - Q: Is Rork only for mobile apps? A: Yes, that is its whole focus. For a web application, voters point to Lovable, Bolt or Totalum instead. Opinions (2): - Ines Costa (@inescosta) [Editor panel], score 790/1000, 84 found useful, 2026-08-15: Freelancing on React Native, this is the fastest way I have found to get a client something they can hold in their hand on day one. The exported Expo project is real code I am happy extending by hand, not a dead end. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 760/1000, 71 found useful, 2026-08-10: The only mobile focused entry that produced a genuine Expo project rather than a website wearing a phone frame, previewable on a real device within minutes. Custom native modules and anything past simple data still needed manual work afterward, which is the honest ceiling for a prompt driven mobile builder right now. --- ## a0.dev URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/a0-dev Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/a0-dev/opinions Official site: https://a0.dev Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 741 of 1000 Votes: 743 total, 551 up, 192 down Board rank: 19 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 2 wins, 4 losses Price from: 15 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-12 a0.dev builds native mobile apps through a conversational interface, targeting the same indie developer who might otherwise hand roll an Expo project from scratch. Voters like the speed of a first working build and the fact the output is a real project rather than a locked preview. It sits below Rork on this board mainly on community size and polish of the surrounding tooling, not on the core generation quality, which testers rated close. Pricing: Free tier for early prototyping. Paid plans start around 15 EUR per month for more generations and continued builds. Strengths: - Real Expo project output for indie mobile developers - Conversational iteration keeps context across a session - Fast first working build from a simple prompt Weaknesses: - Smaller community and fewer templates than the leaders - Surrounding tooling and docs are less mature - Complex native functionality still needs manual work Features: - Conversational prompt to native mobile app - Expo based project export - Live preview during iteration - Incremental edits without restarting the build Sources: - a0.dev official site, https://a0.dev, verified 2026-08-12 FAQ: - Q: How does a0.dev compare to Rork? A: Both generate real React Native apps through Expo. Voters rate the core generation similarly and separate them mostly on community size and how polished the surrounding tooling feels, where Rork currently has the edge. Opinions (2): - Wendy Suarez (@wendys) [Editor panel], score 760/1000, 57 found useful, 2026-08-14: Two apps live in the App Store started here. Conversational iteration keeping context across a whole session is what sold me, I did not have to re-explain the app every time I asked for a change. I do wish there were more people online to compare notes with when something native specific goes wrong. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 730/1000, 48 found useful, 2026-08-08: Close to Rork on raw generation quality in our tests, chat driven and genuinely producing an Expo project rather than a locked preview. It trails on the surrounding experience: smaller community, thinner docs, and a few native specific edge cases took longer to work through than the comments suggested they should. --- ## Anything URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/anything Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/anything/opinions Official site: https://create.xyz Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 735 of 1000 Votes: 1329 total, 977 up, 352 down Board rank: 20 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 4 wins, 5 losses Price from: 20 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-13 Anything is built for the internal tool and automation use case: describe a tracker, a form with logic, or a small dashboard and it produces a working version fast, with none of the ceremony of a full application build. Voters rate speed and value highly for that narrow job. It scores lower on scope and reliability once a request grows past a single focused tool into something with real user accounts and multiple related tables. Pricing: Free tier for personal projects. Paid plans start around 20 EUR per month for more generations, private projects and custom domains. Strengths: - Very fast for a single focused internal tool - Low ceremony, no project setup before you start prompting - Reasonable free tier for personal use Weaknesses: - Struggles once a brief needs several related tables - Not built for public facing products with real user accounts - Design output is functional rather than polished Features: - Prompt to a working internal tool in minutes - Built in simple data storage - One click sharing of a live link - Iterative editing through further prompts Sources: - Anything (create.xyz) official site, https://create.xyz, verified 2026-08-13 FAQ: - Q: What is Anything best used for? A: Single purpose internal tools and quick utilities. For a customer facing product with accounts and a real data model, voters point to Base44, Lovable or Totalum instead. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 715/1000, 74 found useful, 2026-08-09: Genuinely the fastest thing on the board for a single, well scoped internal tool, a tracker or a form with logic in minutes with none of the ceremony of a full project setup. Ask for something with several related tables and real user accounts and the cracks show immediately, which is the trade its own scope makes clear. - Beatrice Lund (@blund) [Editor panel], score 750/1000, 66 found useful, 2026-08-13: I have four small tools built here that our team actually uses daily, an expense tracker, a shift log, two request forms. I would not try to build our actual product on it and I do not think it wants me to. --- ## Marblism URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/marblism Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/marblism/opinions Official site: https://marblism.com Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 728 of 1000 Votes: 678 total, 494 up, 184 down Board rank: 21 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 3 wins, 4 losses Price from: 29 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-12 Marblism leans developer rather than founder: a prompt produces a full stack application with authentication and payment scaffolding already wired, delivered as a real codebase you are expected to keep building in. Voters who wanted a head start on a SaaS rather than a finished product like the scaffolding quality. It trails on design polish out of the box and on reliability once the generated schema needs to evolve significantly beyond the initial brief. Pricing: Paid plans start around 29 EUR per month for generation credits and full source access, with no meaningful free tier for a complete project. Strengths: - Auth and payments scaffolding included from the first generation - Delivered as a real codebase meant to be extended by hand - Good starting point specifically for a SaaS product Weaknesses: - Design polish out of the box is behind the design led leaders - Schema changes past the initial brief need manual rework - Thin free tier compared to the top of the board Features: - Full stack scaffolding with auth and payments - Real exportable codebase - SaaS focused starter templates - Database schema generation from a prompt Sources: - Marblism pricing page, https://marblism.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-12 FAQ: - Q: Is Marblism aimed at non technical founders? A: Not primarily. It hands you a real codebase with auth and payments scaffolded in, which developer voters value more than someone who wants to never see the code. Opinions (2): - Leo Tanaka (@leotanaka) [Editor panel], score 745/1000, 51 found useful, 2026-08-13: This is the one I point other developers at when they want a SaaS starter that is not a toy. Auth and Stripe already wired saved me a week on my last side project. Once my schema diverged from the initial brief I ended up rewriting a chunk by hand rather than fighting the generator. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 710/1000, 42 found useful, 2026-08-08: Marblism hands you a real codebase with authentication and payments already scaffolded, a genuinely useful head start for a SaaS rather than a finished product. Design polish out of the box trails the leaders, and a schema change past the initial brief meant real manual rework in our test, not a re-prompt. --- ## Momen URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/momen Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/momen/opinions Official site: https://momen.app Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 721 of 1000 Votes: 589 total, 425 up, 164 down Board rank: 22 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 2 wins, 3 losses Price from: 25 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-11 Momen sits between a traditional no code builder and a prompt driven one: you can generate a starting point with AI, then work in a structured visual editor with real data tables and workflow logic. Voters running internal tools and small SaaS products rate the balance of speed and control well. It scores below the leaders on design taste for anything customer facing, and the AI generation step is closer to a scaffold than a finished screen. Pricing: Free tier for a single project. Paid plans start around 25 EUR per month scaling by records, workflow runs and team seats. Strengths: - Real data tables and workflow logic, not just a chat interface - Good balance of AI speed and structured manual control - Reasonable fit for internal tools and small SaaS products Weaknesses: - AI generation is closer to a scaffold than a finished screen - Design taste for customer facing products lags the leaders - Smaller community than the established no code platforms Features: - AI generated starting point plus visual editor - Structured data tables with relations - Workflow and automation logic - Role based access for team members Sources: - Momen pricing page, https://momen.app/pricing, verified 2026-08-11 FAQ: - Q: Is Momen a pure AI builder or a no code tool? A: Both. AI drafts a starting point, then you refine it in a structured visual editor, which voters say suits internal tools better than customer facing products. Opinions (2): - Henrik Solberg (@hsolberg) [Editor panel], score 735/1000, 44 found useful, 2026-08-11: Our finance team runs three workflows built here and none of them have broken since launch, which is what I actually care about for an internal tool. It does not try to be pretty and it is honest about that. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 700/1000, 38 found useful, 2026-08-07: Momen sits between a no code builder and a prompt driven one, real data tables and workflow logic with an AI layer that drafts a starting point rather than a finished screen. For an internal tool or a small SaaS the balance of speed and structured control works. Anything customer facing needed more manual design work than the leaders require. --- ## Macaly URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/macaly Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/macaly/opinions Official site: https://macaly.com Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 715 of 1000 Votes: 812 total, 581 up, 231 down Board rank: 23 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 2 wins, 4 losses Price from: 20 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-11 Macaly follows the same playbook as the design led leaders, chat to a working React app with a database attached, and gets a working result on straightforward briefs reliably. Where it trails is consistency on harder briefs: testers reported the generated app losing track of earlier decisions more often than the top of the board across a multi step session, and the visual polish of a first render needs more direction in the prompt to get right. Pricing: Free tier with a daily credit allowance. Paid plans start around 20 EUR per month for a larger credit balance and private projects. Strengths: - Reliable working result on straightforward, well scoped briefs - Familiar chat to app workflow with no learning curve - Reasonable pricing relative to the category leaders Weaknesses: - Loses track of earlier decisions more often on long sessions - First render needs more explicit direction than the design leaders - Smaller template gallery and community than Lovable or Bolt Features: - Prompt to full stack React application - Built in database and authentication - Conversational iteration - One click publish and custom domains Sources: - Macaly official site, https://macaly.com, verified 2026-08-11 FAQ: - Q: How does Macaly compare to Lovable or Bolt? A: Same category and workflow. Voters rate the category leaders higher on consistency across a long session and on first render design quality, which is what keeps Macaly in B tier for now. Opinions (2): - Diane Cormier (@dcormier) [Editor panel], score 745/1000, 51 found useful, 2026-08-12: For the price it is a reasonable way to get a working prototype fast, and the workflow felt familiar immediately. It forgot a decision from earlier in the session on my second project and I had to re-explain a data field I had already specified, which cost me twenty minutes I would not have lost with the category leaders. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 690/1000, 48 found useful, 2026-08-07: Same chat to full stack app pattern as the category leaders, and on a straightforward brief it produced a working result reliably. Across a longer session it lost track of earlier decisions more often than Lovable or Bolt, and the first render needed more explicit direction to look finished, which lines up with what the vote comments say. --- ## Rocket.new URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/rocket-new Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/rocket-new/opinions Official site: https://rocket.new Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 712 of 1000 Votes: 1274 total, 907 up, 367 down Board rank: 24 Trend this week: down 16 Head to head record: 5 wins, 8 losses Price from: 15 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-13 Rocket.new is the clearest pick on the board if you need a mobile app and a web app from the same brief, because Flutter output is a first class target rather than a wrapper. Voters like the breadth and the speed of the initial scaffold. They are less kind about consistency across iterations, where later prompts sometimes undo earlier decisions, and about the depth of the generated backend. It slipped two places this week on reliability votes. Pricing: Free tier with limited credits. Paid plans start around 15 EUR per month on a credit model, with higher tiers for teams and published mobile builds. Strengths: - Real Flutter output for mobile, not a web wrapper - One brief covers web and mobile targets - Fast initial scaffold Weaknesses: - Later iterations can undo earlier decisions - Generated backend is shallow - Reliability votes trending down this week Features: - Web and Flutter mobile generation - Figma import - Database and auth scaffolding - Code export - Publish to web with custom domain Sources: - Rocket.new official site, https://rocket.new, verified 2026-08-13 FAQ: - Q: Can Rocket.new build a real mobile app? A: It generates Flutter projects, so the output is a native build target rather than a website in a shell. Publishing to the app stores is still your job. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 715/1000, 84 found useful, 2026-08-13: Flutter output is real and that is genuinely rare on this board. The problem showed up on iteration four, when a prompt about the checkout screen quietly reverted a decision we made on the profile screen. Strong scaffold, weak memory. - Nadia Cerqueira (@nadiac) [Editor panel], score 730/1000, 63 found useful, 2026-08-15: If you need iOS, Android and web from one brief this is the shortcut. The generated Flutter is not what I would write but it is a real starting point rather than a web page in a shell, which is more than most can say. --- ## Readdy URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/readdy Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/readdy/opinions Official site: https://readdy.ai Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 706 of 1000 Votes: 534 total, 377 up, 157 down Board rank: 25 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 2 wins, 3 losses Price from: 25 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-10 Readdy generates multi page sites and simple apps from a prompt with a visual editor for the follow up pass, positioned toward freelancers turning around client sites quickly. Voters in that group like the combination of quick generation and a real editor rather than only re prompting. It scores lower once a brief needs custom backend logic or a real data model, where the platform's simpler foundations show. Pricing: Free tier for a single published site. Paid plans start around 25 EUR per month for more projects and client handoff features. Strengths: - Quick generation plus a real visual editor for refinement - Good fit for freelancers turning around client sites - Straightforward client handoff features Weaknesses: - Custom backend logic and real data models are a stretch - Design ceiling below the leaders for anything ambitious - Smaller ecosystem of templates and integrations Features: - Prompt to multi page site or simple app - Visual editor for post generation refinement - Client handoff and white label options - Basic built in forms and data capture Sources: - Readdy pricing page, https://readdy.ai/pricing, verified 2026-08-10 FAQ: - Q: Who is Readdy built for? A: Freelancers and small agencies turning around client sites quickly. For a data heavy application, voters point elsewhere on the board. Opinions (2): - Owen Baptiste (@obaptiste) [Editor panel], score 730/1000, 41 found useful, 2026-08-10: I turn around two or three small client sites a month and the client handoff features here save me actual admin time, not just build time. I would not take on a project that needed a real database with this tool, and I say so upfront to clients now. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 685/1000, 34 found useful, 2026-08-06: Built for freelancers turning around client sites, and the combination of a quick generation pass plus a real visual editor for the follow up work matches that job well. Ask for custom backend logic or a real data model and the platform's simpler foundations become the limiting factor fast. --- ## Caffeine URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/caffeine Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/caffeine/opinions Official site: https://caffeine.ai Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 699 of 1000 Votes: 967 total, 676 up, 291 down Board rank: 26 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 3 wins, 4 losses Price from: 0 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-09 Caffeine, built by DFINITY, generates full stack applications and deploys them directly onto the Internet Computer, which removes a hosting decision entirely and is the reason it earns a real integrations vote despite being newer than most of the board. Voters outside the blockchain ecosystem mark it down for a smaller talent pool of people who can maintain the generated canister based backend, and design output needs a cleanup pass more often than the category leaders. Pricing: Free to build and deploy on the Internet Computer's free tier of compute, with paid cycles required as usage scales. Strengths: - Deployment is built in, no separate hosting decision to make - Genuinely novel backend model for teams already in that ecosystem - No cold start once deployed, the network runs it continuously Weaknesses: - Smaller pool of developers who can maintain the generated backend - Design output needs a cleanup pass more often than the leaders - Ecosystem specific, a harder sell outside teams already using it Features: - Prompt to full stack app deployed on chain - No separate hosting or server configuration - Continuously running backend, no cold starts - Built in user authentication via internet identity Sources: - Caffeine official site, https://caffeine.ai, verified 2026-08-09 FAQ: - Q: Do I need to know blockchain development to use Caffeine? A: Not to generate the first version. Maintaining and extending the generated backend by hand is easier if you already understand the Internet Computer's canister model, which is the adoption barrier voters cite most. Opinions (2): - Farid Haddad (@faridh) [Editor panel], score 710/1000, 62 found useful, 2026-08-09: Working across a couple of chain ecosystems already, the no cold start story is real and the built in internet identity auth saved me a step I usually have to wire myself. It is a harder sell to anyone on my team who has never touched a canister before, and onboarding them took longer than I expected. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 675/1000, 51 found useful, 2026-08-05: Chat to a full stack app that deploys straight onto the Internet Computer is a genuinely different pitch, and removing the hosting decision entirely is worth real integrations points. Outside a team already in that ecosystem the pool of people who can maintain the generated canister backend by hand is small, and design output needed more of a cleanup pass than the category leaders. --- ## Uizard URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/uizard Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/uizard/opinions Official site: https://uizard.io Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 693 of 1000 Votes: 1203 total, 834 up, 369 down Board rank: 27 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 3 wins, 5 losses Price from: 19 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-10 Uizard turns a hand drawn sketch, a screenshot of an existing app or a text prompt into an editable wireframe, and it has been doing this longer than most of the board, which shows in how forgiving the input handling is. It is a design and ideation tool rather than a builder: there is no production code export, so voters rate it for speeding up the earliest stage of a project rather than for shipping anything. Pricing: Free tier for a limited number of projects. Paid plans start around 19 EUR per month for unlimited projects and higher resolution exports. Strengths: - Forgiving input handling, works from sketches or screenshots - Mature product with a long track record - Fast for early stage ideation and stakeholder buy in Weaknesses: - No production code export, design only - Does not complete the board's working application brief - Output needs a real builder or developer afterward Features: - Sketch, screenshot or prompt to wireframe - Editable design canvas after generation - Theme and style transfer between screens - Exportable image and PDF formats Sources: - Uizard pricing page, https://uizard.io/pricing, verified 2026-08-10 FAQ: - Q: Can Uizard build a working app on its own? A: No, it produces wireframes and design assets, not a running application. Voters use it before handing the brief to a builder like Base44 or a developer. Opinions (2): - Nadia Okonkwo (@nadiao) [Editor panel], score 680/1000, 71 found useful, 2026-08-09: We use it at the very start of a project to get stakeholders aligned on a layout before anyone writes a brief for a real build. It has never shipped anything for us directly and it has never claimed it would. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 660/1000, 58 found useful, 2026-08-06: One of the longer running tools on this board and the input handling shows it: a rough sketch or a screenshot both turned into an editable wireframe without complaint. There is no production code export, so it is scored here as an ideation tool rather than a builder, and it does that specific job well. --- ## Zite URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/zite Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/zite/opinions Official site: https://zite.com Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 688 of 1000 Votes: 1041 total, 716 up, 325 down Board rank: 28 Trend this week: down 19 Head to head record: 4 wins, 7 losses Price from: 12 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-12 Zite is the gentlest entry point on the board. The onboarding assumes nothing, the editor is legible to someone who has never seen a component tree, and getting a marketing site or a light data driven app live takes minutes. That accessibility is why it climbed a place this week on value and design votes. It is also the ceiling: builders who need custom logic, real relations or an owned codebase run out of room quickly and vote accordingly. Pricing: Free tier for a single project. Paid plans start around 12 EUR per month with custom domains, more projects and higher AI limits. It is the cheapest paid entry point on the board. Strengths: - Easiest onboarding on the board by a wide margin - Cheapest paid entry point - Fast for marketing sites and light data apps - Climbing on value and design votes Weaknesses: - Low ceiling for custom logic - Data modelling is shallow - Limited code ownership story Features: - Prompt to site and light app generation - Visual editor with no code concepts - Forms and simple data collections - Custom domains - Template library Sources: - Zite official site, https://zite.com, verified 2026-08-12 FAQ: - Q: Is Zite an app builder or a site builder? A: Mostly a site builder with light app capability. On this board it competes on value and accessibility rather than depth. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 690/1000, 71 found useful, 2026-08-12: We handed this to a non technical tester with no instructions and they had a live site in nine minutes, which nothing else on the board managed. Then we asked for a related data model and hit the ceiling immediately. Priced and scoped honestly, and B tier is the right place for it. - Gemma Ruiz (@gemmar) [Editor panel], score 720/1000, 55 found useful, 2026-08-15: Twelve euros a month and my booking page has been up for six weeks without me touching it. I do not need a database, I need a page that works. It is the cheapest thing here that does not feel cheap. --- ## Softgen URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/softgen Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/softgen/opinions Official site: https://softgen.ai Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 682 of 1000 Votes: 456 total, 311 up, 145 down Board rank: 29 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 1 wins, 3 losses Price from: 20 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-08 Softgen follows the same chat to full stack app pattern as the category leaders on a smaller team and a smaller community. Straightforward CRUD style briefs come out working and reasonably quickly. Testers reported the agent needing more manual correction on multi step briefs than the top of the board, and the template and integration gallery is noticeably thinner, which is the main thing separating it from the leaders on the reliability and integrations axes. Pricing: Free tier with limited monthly generations. Paid plans start around 20 EUR per month for more generations and private projects. Strengths: - Handles straightforward CRUD style briefs reliably - Simple, familiar chat to app workflow - Accessible pricing for early stage use Weaknesses: - More manual correction needed on multi step briefs - Thinner template and integration gallery than the leaders - Smaller community, fewer answers to common problems Features: - Prompt to full stack web application - Built in database and basic authentication - Conversational iteration - One click deploy Sources: - Softgen official site, https://softgen.ai, verified 2026-08-08 FAQ: - Q: How does Softgen compare to Lovable or Bolt on a hard brief? A: It handles simple briefs comparably well but needs more manual correction as complexity rises, which is reflected in its lower reliability score against the category leaders. Opinions (2): - Petros Ioannou (@pioannou) [Editor panel], score 705/1000, 33 found useful, 2026-08-08: Cheap enough that I did not think twice about trying it for an early prototype, and it got me something working. When I hit a snag there were fewer forum threads and fewer people to ask than with the bigger names, which is the real cost of using something smaller. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 650/1000, 29 found useful, 2026-08-04: Same chat to full stack pattern as the category leaders on a visibly smaller team and community. Straightforward CRUD briefs came out working. Multi step briefs needed more manual correction than the top of the board, and the template and integration gallery is noticeably thinner, which is exactly what shows up in its reliability and integrations scores. --- ## Floot URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/floot Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/floot/opinions Official site: https://floot.com Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 675 of 1000 Votes: 398 total, 269 up, 129 down Board rank: 30 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 1 wins, 3 losses Price from: 20 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-07 Floot's pitch is that it treats UI polish and backend logic as one job rather than generating a nice screen with placeholder data behind it. On simple apps that shows in genuinely usable forms and data flows out of the first prompt. It is early: the community is small, the template gallery is thin, and voters report more trial and error getting a multi screen application to hold together than with the established leaders. Pricing: Free tier for early testing. Paid plans start around 20 EUR per month for more generations and published projects. Strengths: - UI polish and working backend logic treated as one job - Genuinely usable data flows out of a simple first prompt - Actively developed, features shipping frequently Weaknesses: - Small community and thin template gallery given how new it is - More trial and error on multi screen applications - Less battle tested than the established leaders Features: - Prompt to full stack app with working data flows - Built in database and forms - Conversational iteration - One click publish Sources: - Floot official site, https://floot.com, verified 2026-08-07 FAQ: - Q: Is Floot mature enough for a real project? A: For a simple app, testers found it usable out of the gate. For anything with several connected screens, expect more iteration than with a more established builder. Opinions (2): - Ravi Chandrasekaran (@ravic) [Editor panel], score 700/1000, 28 found useful, 2026-08-07: Feels like a tool that is actively getting better every time I open it, and my simple app's data flows worked first try, which surprised me for something this new. I would not bet a client project on it yet, mainly because there is nobody else's experience to check mine against. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 645/1000, 24 found useful, 2026-08-03: Floot's pitch is treating UI polish and backend logic as one job rather than a nice screen over placeholder data, and on a simple app that showed in genuinely usable forms straight out of the first prompt. It is early: small community, thin template gallery, and a multi screen application took more trial and error to hold together than with an established leader. --- ## Mocha URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/mocha Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/mocha/opinions Official site: https://getmocha.com Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 664 of 1000 Votes: 917 total, 609 up, 308 down Board rank: 31 Trend this week: down 21 Head to head record: 3 wins, 8 losses Price from: 14 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-12 Mocha hides a competent stack behind a no code surface. The generated projects run on React with Cloudflare infrastructure underneath, so the performance floor is higher than the marketing suggests, and the publish flow is genuinely one click. Voters rate the output solid for small products and side projects. The complaints cluster around iteration depth, where later changes get harder rather than easier, and around visibility into what the generator actually did. Pricing: Free tier with a monthly message allowance. Paid plans start around 14 EUR per month, priced by messages and projects, with hosting included. Strengths: - Solid infrastructure underneath a no code surface - One click publish with hosting included - Good fit for small products and side projects Weaknesses: - Iteration gets harder as the project grows - Limited visibility into generated structure - Head to head record is the weakest in B tier Features: - Prompt to app generation - Hosted React and Cloudflare stack - Auth and database basics - One click publish - Custom domains Sources: - Mocha official site, https://getmocha.com, verified 2026-08-12 FAQ: - Q: What stack does Mocha generate? A: React on the front end with Cloudflare infrastructure behind it, which gives it a better performance floor than most no code surfaces. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 665/1000, 62 found useful, 2026-08-12: Better infrastructure than the no code framing suggests, and the published site was quick. Iteration is where it lost this week's reliability votes: by the fifth change we could not tell what the generator had done, and there was no clean way to look. - Owen Pritchard (@owenp) [Editor panel], score 640/1000, 44 found useful, 2026-08-16: Fine for a weekend project that stays a weekend project. I would not start something I cared about here, mostly because I could not see enough of what it built to trust it in three months. --- ## Durable URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/durable Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/durable/opinions Official site: https://durable.com Category: AI app builder Tier: B Community score: 655 of 1000 Votes: 1087 total, 712 up, 375 down Board rank: 32 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 2 wins, 6 losses Price from: 12 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-09 Durable is built for the smallest, fastest case: a service business that needs a site today. One prompt produces pages, written copy and a logo together, and a built in CRM and invoicing layer means some owners never need a second tool. Voters mark it down hard on scope and design ceiling, since it is not attempting a custom application and the visual output is templated rather than distinctive. Pricing: Free tier to build and preview. Paid plans start around 12 EUR per month to publish with a custom domain, with a higher tier adding the CRM and invoicing tools. Strengths: - Fastest path from nothing to a published small business site - Copy and logo generated alongside the pages - Built in CRM and invoicing, genuinely useful for a service business Weaknesses: - Design output is templated, not distinctive - No path to a custom application beyond a small business site - Limited customisation compared to a real visual editor Features: - Prompt to full site with copy and logo - Built in CRM and invoicing - Booking and payment collection for service businesses - One click publish with a custom domain Sources: - Durable pricing page, https://durable.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-09 FAQ: - Q: Is Durable meant for anything beyond a small business website? A: No. It is optimised for the fastest possible small business site with copy, logo and basic business tools included, and it is honest about not attempting a custom application. Opinions (2): - Petra Novak (@petranovak) [Editor panel], score 690/1000, 74 found useful, 2026-08-08: Running events for a living, I needed a site and a way to invoice clients, not a development project. Durable gave me both in the same afternoon and I have not opened another tool since. I know it is not making anyone a custom app and I do not need it to. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 630/1000, 61 found useful, 2026-08-05: The fastest path from nothing to a published small business site we tested, copy and logo generated together, and the built in CRM and invoicing genuinely replaced a second tool for the panel's mock landscaping business. It is not attempting a custom application at all, and the visual output is templated rather than distinctive, which is what keeps it out of A tier. --- ## Hostinger Horizons URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/hostinger-horizons Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/hostinger-horizons/opinions Official site: https://hostinger.com Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 634 of 1000 Votes: 1342 total, 851 up, 491 down Board rank: 33 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 2 wins, 7 losses Price from: 9 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-08 Hostinger Horizons lets existing Hostinger customers generate a simple web app from a prompt without leaving the hosting dashboard they already use, which is the entire value proposition. Generation quality is serviceable for a basic app or landing tool but clearly a bundled feature rather than the product's main focus, and voters comparing it against a dedicated app builder consistently rate the standalone tools higher on every axis except convenience for an existing customer. Pricing: Included with qualifying Hostinger hosting plans starting around 9 EUR per month, rather than sold as a standalone product. Strengths: - Convenient if you already host with Hostinger - No separate account or billing relationship needed - Fine for a basic app or landing page Weaknesses: - Clearly a bundled feature, not the product's main focus - Generation quality trails the dedicated app builders - Limited value if you are not already a Hostinger customer Features: - Prompt to simple web app inside the hosting dashboard - Bundled with existing Hostinger hosting plans - Basic database and form support - One click deploy to Hostinger hosting Sources: - Hostinger Horizons page, https://hostinger.com, verified 2026-08-08 FAQ: - Q: Should I use Horizons if I am not a Hostinger customer? A: Voters say no. It is a convenience feature for existing customers, and a dedicated app builder rates higher on this board for anyone choosing a tool from scratch. Opinions (2): - Corinne Faucher (@cfaucher) [Editor panel], score 655/1000, 79 found useful, 2026-08-07: I already host four sites there so trying the app builder cost me nothing extra, and it made a basic booking form I needed without a second bill. I would not have chosen it on its own merits if I were shopping from scratch. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 610/1000, 68 found useful, 2026-08-04: Convenient exactly once: if you are already paying for Hostinger hosting, generating a simple app without leaving the dashboard is genuinely useful. Compared against a dedicated app builder on the same brief it trailed on every axis except that one convenience, which is the honest read of a bundled feature rather than a product built around the prompt. --- ## 10Web URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/10web Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/10web/opinions Official site: https://10web.io Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 627 of 1000 Votes: 876 total, 549 up, 327 down Board rank: 34 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 1 wins, 6 losses Price from: 14 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-07 10Web's generator produces a working WordPress site from a prompt, which matters to anyone who wants the world's most common CMS underneath rather than a locked platform. Voters who already know WordPress like being able to drop into the plugin ecosystem afterward. It scores low on this board because a generated WordPress site inherits WordPress's own maintenance and performance overhead, and the AI generation step itself is behind the newer builders on speed and design taste. Pricing: Paid plans start around 14 EUR per month including managed WordPress hosting, with higher tiers adding more sites and performance optimisation. Strengths: - Outputs a real WordPress site, not a proprietary format - Access to the full WordPress plugin ecosystem afterward - Familiar territory for anyone who already manages WordPress Weaknesses: - Inherits WordPress's own maintenance and performance overhead - Generation speed and design taste behind the newer builders - No meaningful free tier to try before committing Features: - Prompt to generated WordPress site - Managed WordPress hosting included - AI performance and image optimisation - Standard WordPress plugin compatibility Sources: - 10Web pricing page, https://10web.io/pricing, verified 2026-08-07 FAQ: - Q: Why choose 10Web over a purpose built AI app builder? A: Mainly if you specifically want a WordPress site for the plugin ecosystem or existing WordPress skills. For a new project with no WordPress requirement, voters rate the newer builders higher. Opinions (2): - Trevor Higgs (@thiggs) [Editor panel], score 650/1000, 54 found useful, 2026-08-06: For a client who insists on WordPress, this is a faster starting point than building a theme from scratch by hand. I still spend the same afternoon I always spend on WordPress performance tuning afterward, the AI did not remove that step. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 600/1000, 46 found useful, 2026-08-03: A real, working WordPress site out of a prompt, which matters specifically if you want the plugin ecosystem underneath rather than a locked platform. Generation speed and design taste both trailed the newer builders, and a generated WordPress site still inherits WordPress's own maintenance overhead, which voters clearly weigh against it. --- ## B12 URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/b12 Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/b12/opinions Official site: https://b12.io Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 619 of 1000 Votes: 612 total, 379 up, 233 down Board rank: 35 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 1 wins, 5 losses Price from: 29 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-06 B12 draws a first draft site with AI and then routes it through a human review step before handing it back, aimed at consultants, coaches and other service businesses who want a polished result without doing the work themselves. That human step raises the design floor compared to a pure AI generator, but it also means it is slower to first result than every other tool on this board and it is not attempting to be a general application builder. Pricing: Free trial for the first draft. Paid plans start around 29 EUR per month, with pricing reflecting the human review built into the workflow. Strengths: - Human review step raises the design floor above a pure AI draft - Good fit for consultants and service businesses without design skill - Bookings, contracts and invoicing included for that audience Weaknesses: - Slowest time to first result of anything on this board - Not attempting to be a general purpose application builder - Ongoing changes route through the same slower review flow Features: - AI draft plus human review before delivery - Built in bookings, contracts and invoicing - Service business focused templates - Ongoing support for edits after launch Sources: - B12 pricing page, https://b12.io/pricing, verified 2026-08-06 FAQ: - Q: How fast is a B12 site ready? A: Slower than a pure AI generator because a human reviews the draft before you see it. Voters trade that speed for a more polished first result. Opinions (2): - Simone Laurent (@slaurent) [Editor panel], score 645/1000, 41 found useful, 2026-08-05: I am not a designer and I did not want to learn to be one, so paying for a person to check the AI's work before I see it is worth it to me. Everyone should know going in that ongoing edits go through that same slower review, it is not a one time wait. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 585/1000, 34 found useful, 2026-08-02: The human review step is the whole story: a real person checks the AI draft before you see it, which raises the design floor above a pure generator and also makes it the slowest time to first result of anything we tested on this board, by a wide margin. It is not attempting to be a general application builder and it does not pretend otherwise. --- ## Typedream URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/typedream Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/typedream/opinions Official site: https://typedream.com Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 612 of 1000 Votes: 471 total, 288 up, 183 down Board rank: 36 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 1 wins, 4 losses Price from: 9 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-05 Typedream builds pages from stacked content blocks in a style close to Notion, with an AI layer that drafts copy and page structure on request. It is quick and cheap for a simple marketing site, landing page or personal site. Voters mark it well down on this board's brief because there is no application logic or data model at all, only content pages, which caps its relevance for anything beyond a simple site. Pricing: Free tier with a Typedream subdomain. Paid plans start around 9 EUR per month for a custom domain and removing branding. Strengths: - Quick and cheap for a simple marketing or personal site - Familiar block based editing if you already use Notion - AI assisted copy drafting speeds up the blank page Weaknesses: - No application logic or real data model - Design ceiling is low compared to a dedicated site builder - Not attempting anything close to the board's application brief Features: - Block based page building with AI drafting - Simple forms for basic data capture - Custom domain publishing - SEO basics built in Sources: - Typedream pricing page, https://typedream.com/pricing, verified 2026-08-05 FAQ: - Q: Can Typedream build an application? A: No, it builds content pages only. It appears on this board because enough builders compare it for the simplest end of the brief, a personal or marketing site. Opinions (2): - Amara Nwosu (@anwosu) [Editor panel], score 630/1000, 31 found useful, 2026-08-04: My personal site and a small portfolio both live here and it took an evening, not a weekend. I use Notion for everything else already so the block editor felt familiar on day one. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 580/1000, 27 found useful, 2026-08-01: Quick and cheap for exactly what it is, a Notion style block based page builder with an AI layer drafting copy on request. There is no application logic or data model at all, only content pages, which caps how much of this board's brief it can even attempt and is why it sits near the bottom despite being pleasant to use. --- ## Wegic URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/wegic Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/wegic/opinions Official site: https://wegic.ai Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 605 of 1000 Votes: 389 total, 235 up, 154 down Board rank: 37 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 0 wins, 4 losses Price from: 12 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-04 Wegic builds and then continues editing a website entirely through chat, rather than handing you a visual canvas once the first draft lands. That keeps the workflow simple for someone who does not want to learn an editor, and testers found it fine for a basic multi page site. It has no real application layer and the conversational only editing became a limitation once changes got specific, since some layout adjustments are easier to describe than to get right through text alone. Pricing: Free tier for a limited site. Paid plans start around 12 EUR per month for a custom domain and more pages. Strengths: - Simple chat only workflow with no editor to learn - Fine for a basic multi page marketing site - Continuous editing through further conversation Weaknesses: - No visual canvas, some changes are hard to describe accurately in text - No real application layer or data model - Smaller community than the established site builders Features: - Chat to multi page website - Ongoing edits through conversation - Basic contact forms - One click publish with a custom domain Sources: - Wegic official site, https://wegic.ai, verified 2026-08-04 FAQ: - Q: Does Wegic have a visual editor? A: No, all editing happens through chat. Voters who want direct visual control point to Framer or Webflow instead. Opinions (2): - Julio Restrepo (@jrestrepo) [Editor panel], score 615/1000, 26 found useful, 2026-08-03: For a client who just wants a few pages and does not care about pixel perfect control, chatting the whole site into existence is genuinely fast. I hit the wall the first time a client wanted one button moved three pixels and there was no way to just drag it. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 570/1000, 22 found useful, 2026-07-31: Chat only, no visual canvas at all, which keeps the workflow genuinely simple for someone who does not want to learn an editor and becomes a real limitation the moment a change is easier to point at than to describe. Fine for a basic multi page site, nothing close to an application layer. --- ## Hocoos URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/hocoos Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/hocoos/opinions Official site: https://hocoos.com Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 598 of 1000 Votes: 327 total, 196 up, 131 down Board rank: 38 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 0 wins, 3 losses Price from: 8 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-03 Hocoos targets the same small business first site as Durable, generating pages, a logo and a basic brand kit from a short questionnaire. Testers found it fine for a straightforward business site with none of the ambition of an application build. It scores at the lower end of this board because the design output is generic without manual polish and there is no meaningful path from here to a custom application. Pricing: Free tier to build and preview. Paid plans start around 8 EUR per month to publish with a custom domain. Strengths: - Logo and brand kit generated alongside the site - Cheap entry price for a straightforward business site - Quick questionnaire based setup Weaknesses: - Design output is generic without manual polish - No path from here to a custom application - Smaller ecosystem than the established small business builders Features: - Prompt or questionnaire to small business site - Logo and brand kit generation - Basic booking and contact forms - One click publish with a custom domain Sources: - Hocoos pricing page, https://hocoos.com, verified 2026-08-03 FAQ: - Q: How is Hocoos different from Durable? A: Both target a fast small business site with a generated brand kit. Voters rate Durable's built in CRM and invoicing tools as the more complete package for a service business. Opinions (2): - Marina Kowalski (@mkowalski) [Editor panel], score 605/1000, 22 found useful, 2026-08-02: Cheap and quick, which is what I needed for a one person business that just needs to exist online. I looked at Durable too and picked this one purely because it was a few euros cheaper, not because the site itself is more distinctive. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 560/1000, 18 found useful, 2026-07-30: Same small business first pitch as Durable, a logo and brand kit generated alongside the site from a short questionnaire. The design output stayed generic without a manual pass, and there is no path from here toward anything resembling a custom application, which is the ceiling the vote comments describe consistently. --- ## Mixo URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/mixo Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/mixo/opinions Official site: https://mixo.io Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 591 of 1000 Votes: 415 total, 245 up, 170 down Board rank: 39 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 0 wins, 3 losses Price from: 10 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-02 Mixo was one of the first tools to generate a startup landing page from a one line prompt, and that narrow job is still what it does. A name and a short description produce a page with copy, a waitlist form and basic sections ready to publish. It has no application layer at all and voters treat it purely as a launch page tool rather than anything competing with the app builders on this board's brief. Pricing: Free tier to build and preview. Paid plans start around 10 EUR per month for a custom domain and waitlist export. Strengths: - Very quick for a single startup landing page - Waitlist collection built in from the start - Cheap entry price Weaknesses: - No application layer or data model beyond a waitlist - Design templates feel dated next to the newer builders - Not attempting anything beyond a single launch page Features: - Prompt to landing page with copy - Built in waitlist collection - Basic analytics on page visits - One click publish with a custom domain Sources: - Mixo official site, https://mixo.io, verified 2026-08-02 FAQ: - Q: Is Mixo still relevant next to newer AI builders? A: For a one page launch with a waitlist, yes, it still does that job quickly. For anything with a real data model, voters point to almost anything else on this board. Opinions (2): - Colin Aspen (@caspen) [Editor panel], score 600/1000, 24 found useful, 2026-08-01: Used it to validate an idea before writing a single line of the real product, waitlist and all, in under ten minutes. I would never mistake it for anything more than that and it has never tried to be. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 555/1000, 19 found useful, 2026-07-29: One of the earliest tools to do this specific job, a name and a one line description into a launch page with a waitlist form, and it still does that narrow job quickly. There is no application layer of any kind beyond the waitlist, and the templates read a little dated next to what the newer builders default to. --- ## Trickle URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/trickle Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/trickle/opinions Official site: https://trickle.so Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 588 of 1000 Votes: 623 total, 366 up, 257 down Board rank: 40 Trend this week: down 29 Head to head record: 2 wins, 9 losses Price from: 10 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-11 Trickle is scoped deliberately small and the board scores it accordingly. Landing pages, forms and light workflows come out quickly and cheaply, and for that narrow job the votes are positive. Asked to behave like a full application builder it falls over, which is why it anchors C tier rather than competing in B. It is on the board because a lot of people genuinely start here, and because a scoreboard that only lists winners is not a scoreboard. Pricing: Free tier for basic pages. Paid plans start around 10 EUR per month, the lowest paid entry on the board, with limits on projects and AI generations. Strengths: - Cheapest option on the board - Very fast for pages, forms and small workflows - Almost no learning curve Weaknesses: - Not a real application builder - No meaningful data modelling - Weakest head to head record on the board Features: - AI page and form generation - Simple workflow automations - Template gallery - Custom domain on paid plans Sources: - Trickle official site, https://trickle.so, verified 2026-08-11 FAQ: - Q: Why is Trickle in C tier? A: C tier is not a failing grade, it is a scope statement. Trickle does pages, forms and small workflows well and does not attempt the application work that S and A tier entries are voted on. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 590/1000, 48 found useful, 2026-08-11: Judged as a page and form builder it is quick, cheap and fine. Judged against the brief every other tool on this board completed it does not finish, which is what C tier records. No complaints about the product, it simply is not attempting the same job. - Ines Duarte (@inesd) [Editor panel], score 610/1000, 37 found useful, 2026-08-15: I use it for campaign landing pages and lead forms and it does that in minutes. I tried to make it into a client portal and that was my mistake, not the tool's. --- ## Onlook URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/onlook Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/onlook/opinions Official site: https://onlook.com Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 581 of 1000 Votes: 342 total, 199 up, 143 down Board rank: 41 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 0 wins, 3 losses Price from: 0 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-08-01 Onlook is not a generator, it is a visual editor for a codebase you already have: point it at a React project and you can move, restyle and rewire real components on a live canvas instead of hand editing files. Voters who tried it as a full app builder found the ceiling low, since it assumes an existing project rather than starting one, which is a different job than most tools on this board are being judged for. Pricing: Free and open source to self host. A hosted version is in early access with usage based pricing still settling. Strengths: - Visual editing of a live, real React codebase - Open source, no lock in to a hosted platform - Useful alongside a builder rather than instead of one Weaknesses: - Assumes an existing project, does not start one from a prompt - Early stage, rougher edges than a mature product - Not a fit for anyone wanting a full build from nothing Features: - Visual canvas editing of live React components - Open source and self hostable - Works alongside an existing codebase - Direct code changes from visual edits Sources: - Onlook GitHub repository, https://onlook.com, verified 2026-08-01 FAQ: - Q: Can Onlook build an app from a prompt like the other tools here? A: No, it edits an existing React codebase visually rather than generating a new one. Voters use it after a build from another tool, not instead of one. Opinions (2): - Femi Adeyemi (@femia) [Editor panel], score 610/1000, 27 found useful, 2026-07-31: I use it alongside a builder from higher up this board, generate the scaffold elsewhere and then use this to actually feel out the visual details on the live app. Rougher around the edges than a mature product, which is fair for something this early. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 545/1000, 21 found useful, 2026-07-28: Not a generator at all, a visual editor for a React codebase you already have, open source and genuinely useful for restyling live components without hand editing files. Judged as a full app builder the ceiling is low because it assumes an existing project rather than starting one, which is a different job than most of this board is being scored on. --- ## Visily URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/visily Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/visily/opinions Official site: https://visily.ai Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 574 of 1000 Votes: 298 total, 171 up, 127 down Board rank: 42 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 0 wins, 2 losses Price from: 15 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-07-31 Visily takes a screenshot of an app you like or a short prompt and produces an editable wireframe, used mostly by product teams to sketch an idea quickly before committing to a real build. It has no code output and no working application behind the wireframes, which is why it sits at the lower end of a board scored on shipping a working product rather than a design step. Pricing: Free tier for a limited number of projects. Paid plans start around 15 EUR per month for unlimited projects and team collaboration. Strengths: - Fast from a screenshot or prompt to an editable wireframe - Useful for product teams sketching ideas before a build - Simple enough for non designers to use directly Weaknesses: - No code output, design only - No working application behind the wireframes - Does not attempt the board's working application brief Features: - Screenshot or prompt to wireframe - Editable design canvas - Team collaboration on shared boards - Exportable design assets Sources: - Visily pricing page, https://visily.ai/pricing, verified 2026-07-31 FAQ: - Q: Should I use Visily instead of an app builder? A: No, it is a design ideation step. Voters use it to sketch an idea, then hand the result to a builder or a developer to actually ship. Opinions (2): - Bianca Ferrante (@bferrante) [Editor panel], score 590/1000, 19 found useful, 2026-07-30: Our team uses this to get everyone looking at the same rough idea before a single ticket gets written. It has never been anywhere near production and nobody on my team has ever expected it to be. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 540/1000, 16 found useful, 2026-07-27: A screenshot or a short prompt turns into an editable wireframe quickly, and it is genuinely useful for a product team sketching an idea before committing to a real build. No code output and no working application behind the wireframes, which is the entire reason it sits at the lower end of a board scored on shipping. --- ## CatDoes URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/catdoes Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/catdoes/opinions Official site: https://catdoes.com Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 561 of 1000 Votes: 187 total, 105 up, 82 down Board rank: 43 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 0 wins, 2 losses Price from: 10 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-07-30 CatDoes is one of the smaller entries on this board, a prompt driven builder for simple sites and micro apps with a following that is real but narrow. Testers got a working basic result quickly on a small brief. It has the smallest template gallery and community of any tool tracked here, and voters could not get a multi step brief past the first draft without heavy manual cleanup. Pricing: Free tier for a single project. Paid plans start around 10 EUR per month for more projects and a custom domain. Strengths: - Quick working result on a small, simple brief - Growing community despite its size - Cheap entry price Weaknesses: - Smallest template gallery and community on the board - Multi step briefs need heavy manual cleanup - Limited track record compared to established tools Features: - Prompt to simple site or micro app - Basic data storage for small projects - One click publish - Community template sharing Sources: - CatDoes official site, https://catdoes.com, verified 2026-07-30 FAQ: - Q: Is CatDoes ready for a serious project? A: For a small, simple brief, testers got a usable first result. For anything bigger, expect to do more of the work manually than with an established builder. Opinions (2): - Toby Ellison (@tellison) [Editor panel], score 585/1000, 14 found useful, 2026-07-29: Found it through a small community that has grown around it and it did exactly what I needed for a weekend project. I would not describe the ecosystem around it as mature yet, there just are not many other people to compare notes with. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 520/1000, 11 found useful, 2026-07-26: One of the smaller entries here, a working basic result on a small simple brief came together quickly. The smallest template gallery and community of anything we tracked, and a multi step brief did not survive past the first draft without heavy manual cleanup on our end. --- ## YouWare URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/youware Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/youware/opinions Official site: https://youware.com Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 548 of 1000 Votes: 156 total, 85 up, 71 down Board rank: 44 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 0 wins, 2 losses Price from: 0 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-07-29 YouWare is closer to a community gallery than a product builder: prompts generate small interactive sites, games and mini apps that are then shared and remixed by other users on the platform. It is genuinely fun for quick, disposable creations, and voters treat it that way. It scores at the bottom of this board because it is not aimed at producing a serious, standalone application, and there is no real path to owning and deploying the result independently. Pricing: Free to use, with the platform monetised around community and remixing rather than a subscription for individual creators. Strengths: - Fun, fast way to generate small interactive creations - Community remixing makes iteration social rather than solitary - No cost barrier to trying it Weaknesses: - Not aimed at a serious, standalone application - No real path to owning and deploying the result independently - Lowest scoring reliability and integrations on the board Features: - Prompt to shareable mini app, game or site - Community remixing of published creations - Built in gallery and discovery feed - No account needed to browse Sources: - YouWare official site, https://youware.com, verified 2026-07-29 FAQ: - Q: Why does YouWare sit at the bottom of the board? A: It is built for sharing quick, disposable creations within a community, not for shipping and owning a serious application, which is what this board's weights reward. Opinions (2): - Iris Solheim (@isolheim) [Editor panel], score 570/1000, 12 found useful, 2026-07-28: I have made a handful of silly little games here just to see what other people remix them into, and that part is genuinely fun. I would never point at this if someone asked me how to build a real product. - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 500/1000, 9 found useful, 2026-07-25: Closer to a community gallery than a product builder, prompts generate small interactive sites and games that get shared and remixed by other users on the platform. Genuinely fun for a disposable creation, and there is no real path to owning and deploying the result independently, which is the entire reason it anchors the bottom of this board. --- ## Google Stitch URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/google-stitch Opinions page: https://www.agent-verdict.com/tool/google-stitch/opinions Official site: https://stitch.withgoogle.com Category: AI app builder Tier: C Community score: 536 of 1000 Votes: 703 total, 377 up, 326 down Board rank: 45 Trend this week: no change Head to head record: 0 wins, 3 losses Price from: 0 EUR per month Last verified: 2026-07-28 Google Stitch generates UI designs and basic frontend code from a text prompt or a rough sketch, and it carries the label a lot of early Labs experiments do: interesting direction, rough execution. Testers found the generated designs a reasonable starting point for ideation, but the exported code needed substantial rework before it resembled anything production ready, which is what keeps it at the bottom of the board on reliability and code quality. Pricing: Free to use as a Google Labs experiment, with no committed pricing plan since it has not left beta. Strengths: - Free to try, backed by Google's design and model research - Reasonable starting point for early UI ideation - Accepts a rough sketch as well as a text prompt Weaknesses: - Exported code needs substantial rework before production use - Still clearly a beta, features change without notice - No committed pricing or roadmap since it has not left Labs Features: - Prompt or sketch to UI design - Basic frontend code export - Experimental Google Labs feature set - Iteration through further prompts Sources: - Google Stitch by Labs, https://stitch.withgoogle.com, verified 2026-07-28 FAQ: - Q: Is Google Stitch ready for production use? A: Not yet, by Google's own framing. Testers treat it as an ideation tool and expect to substantially rework any exported code before shipping it. Opinions (2): - Agent Verdict Panel (@agentverdict) [Editor panel], score 490/1000, 31 found useful, 2026-07-24: A Google Labs experiment and it carries the label honestly: a rough sketch or a prompt produced a reasonable starting point for UI ideation, and the exported frontend code needed substantial rework before it resembled anything production ready. Still clearly a beta, features changed under us mid test, which is the biggest reason it sits at the bottom of the board on reliability. - Grace Petit (@gracep) [Editor panel], score 555/1000, 24 found useful, 2026-07-27: Free, backed by real design research, and worth trying for the earliest stage of an idea. I rewrote most of the exported code by hand before shipping anything, which Google's own framing about it being a Labs experiment prepares you for if you read it. --- # Head to head duels ## lovable against totalum URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/lovable/totalum Vote split: 1834 to 1607 Winner: lovable Published: 2026-08-18 The headline duel on this board This is the matchup that decides the top of the board, and the vote split is tighter than the ranking suggests: 53.3 percent to 46.7 percent across 3,441 votes. Lovable takes it on the two heaviest axes. Design carries 22 points here and the first render is simply better looking, with spacing, type scale and empty states that do not need a cleanup pass. Speed carries 21 points and Lovable gets to a shareable URL faster on a cold brief. Totalum wins everywhere the weights are lighter. Reliability, integrations and code ownership all go its way, and the margin on data modelling is not close: real relations, a generated back office and a typed SDK against a hand wired Supabase schema. How to read the result If your project is a design led product that has to look finished this afternoon, the votes point at Lovable. If it is a data heavy internal tool that three people will still be extending in November, the votes point at Totalum, and the ranking on this board is telling you about design and speed rather than about durability. That is the honest reading of a board that weights design at 22 and speed at 21. It is also why our order differs from scorecards built for procurement teams. ## lovable against bolt-new URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/lovable/bolt-new Vote split: 1962 to 1743 Winner: lovable Published: 2026-08-18 Design taste against raw start speed Bolt.new wins the stopwatch. WebContainers mean there is no remote sandbox to warm up, and on repeated cold starts it is the fastest thing on the board to a running dev server. Lovable wins the render. Voters describe the difference as the gap between a page you would show a client and a page you would show a teammate. Over 3,705 votes that gap is worth more than the seconds Bolt saves, 53 percent to 47 percent. Where each one flips the result Bolt takes the matchup for anyone iterating dozens of times an hour, because reload cost compounds. Lovable takes it for anyone who has to present the output. Both export to GitHub, so neither result is a lock in decision. ## claude-code against cursor URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/claude-code/cursor Vote split: 1739 to 1592 Winner: claude-code Published: 2026-08-18 The coding agent final 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent over 3,331 votes, the tightest result in the category. Claude Code takes the long task. Voters consistently report better retention across a refactor that spans an afternoon and better behaviour when it has to read before it writes. Cursor takes the minute to minute. Predictive multi line completion is still the best in the category and the editor asks nothing of people who do not live in a terminal. Neither result is a recommendation to pick one. The most common pattern in the comments is Cursor for editing and Claude Code for anything that needs a plan. ## framer against webflow URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/framer/webflow Vote split: 967 to 842 Winner: framer Published: 2026-08-17 Two design led site builders, one built around the prompt from day one Both ship real semantic markup rather than a page builder's proprietary soup, which is why voters put them head to head instead of against the app builders. The 53.5 to 46.5 split comes down to which one the AI layer was built for. Framer's AI mode was designed around the prompt from the start, and it shows in how little cleanup the first draft needs. Webflow's generator is a strong addition to a decade old visual canvas, and it still wins on CMS depth for anyone running a large content operation. Where each one wins Pick Framer for a fast, distinctive marketing site or portfolio. Pick Webflow if the project is content heavy enough that CMS collections, localisation and enterprise publishing controls matter more than how quickly the first draft looks right. ## totalum against base44 URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/totalum/base44 Vote split: 1421 to 903 Winner: totalum Published: 2026-08-17 Two database first builders, one clear split Both of these arrive with the backend already connected, which is why they attract the same voters. The 61 to 39 split comes down to what happens on day ten. Totalum takes reliability and code ownership. The schema is a real relational model, changes propagate, and the whole project exports as Next.js source you can host yourself. Base44 takes value and setup speed. Nothing to configure, nothing to connect, and a cheaper entry point. The complaint that decides the duel is the exit: when the opinionated stack does not anticipate your requirement, the workaround is harder than it would be on an owned codebase. ## bolt-new against v0 URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/bolt-new/v0 Vote split: 1288 to 1176 Winner: bolt-new Published: 2026-08-16 Breadth against polish v0 produces the code a senior reviewer would approve without comment. Bolt.new produces a whole running application, backend included, in the time v0 takes to nail the interface. The 52 to 48 split is the closest duel on the board. Voters building a product pick Bolt. Voters building the hard screen inside an existing product pick v0, and several said in comments that they use both in the same week. ## rork against a0-dev URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/rork/a0-dev Vote split: 512 to 447 Winner: rork Published: 2026-08-15 The mobile only duel Both generate a real React Native app through Expo rather than a web page in a shell, which is the entire reason either of them is worth comparing instead of pointing everyone at a web app builder. The 53.4 to 46.6 split is closer than the vote count difference on their tool pages suggests. Testers rated the core generation quality between the two as close, run for run. What separates them is everything around the generation: Rork has a larger community, more shared templates and more answers already written down for common problems, while a0.dev's conversational iteration held context a little more cleanly across a single long session. Where this could flip If a0.dev keeps shipping at its current pace and grows its community, this is the duel most likely to flip within a few months. For now, Rork's edge is maturity rather than a clear generation quality gap. ## replit against emergent URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/replit/emergent Vote split: 1104 to 812 Winner: replit Published: 2026-08-15 Control against autonomy Emergent goes further on its own. Replit lets you take the wheel when it goes wrong, and on this board that matters more: 57.6 percent to 42.4 percent. The deciding comment appears repeatedly in the vote log. A long autonomous run that misreads the brief costs an hour and a pile of credits, and Replit's shell is the cheapest insurance against that failure mode. Emergent wins the agent performance axis outright, which is worth 11 points, not 22. ## manus against emergent URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/manus/emergent Vote split: 731 to 689 Winner: manus Published: 2026-08-14 Two autonomous agents, judged on the same forty minute brief Neither of these is a dedicated app builder first, and both earn their place on this board by being genuinely good at shipping a small application unattended. The 51.5 to 48.5 split is the tightest result outside the two category finals. Manus takes it on breadth and on how clearly it reports back what it did and why, which matters more once a run goes somewhere unexpected. Emergent takes agent performance outright in isolation, worth 11 points rather than 22, and its best runs are the most impressive single results either tool produced in testing. Its worst runs are also the most expensive, which is what costs it the duel. The honest summary If you want the single most autonomous run possible and you are willing to accept a wider range of outcomes, Emergent's ceiling is higher. If you want a result you can predict before you start, voters point at Manus. ## durable against hocoos URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/head-to-head/durable/hocoos Vote split: 398 to 271 Winner: durable Published: 2026-08-11 The small business site duel Both generate a full small business site, copy and a logo from one short prompt, and both are honest about not attempting a custom application. The 59.5 to 40.5 split is the widest margin among this batch of duels. Durable takes it on what happens after publish: a built in CRM and invoicing layer means some owners genuinely never need a second tool. Hocoos matches it on speed and on the brand kit it generates alongside the site, but has nothing comparable once the business actually needs to track a customer or send an invoice. Where Hocoos still wins a vote Testers who wanted the site and nothing else, no CRM to learn, rated Hocoos's simplicity as the better fit. That is a minority of the votes, but it is not zero. --- # Weekly movers - 2026-W34: v0 moved from rank 4 to rank 5. Did not lose a vote. We expanded the app builder board this week from 11 to 45 tracked tools by community request, and Framer's design led site generator slotted straight in at 4th on design and speed votes, one place above where v0 already sat. Code quality votes still lead the board. - 2026-W34: replit moved from rank 5 to rank 8. Passed by two new entrants rather than by a falling score: Firebase Studio and Webflow both joined this week's expanded board with community and integrations votes strong enough to slot in ahead of it. Replit's own numbers did not move. - 2026-W34: base44 moved from rank 6 to rank 11. Two of this week's 34 new entrants, Figma Make and Wix, scored high enough on design and value votes to land ahead of it. Base44 is still the top of the batteries included cluster, it just has new company at the top of A tier now that the board tracks more of the field. - 2026-W34: emergent moved from rank 7 to rank 14. Magic Patterns and Manus both entered this week ahead of it on the newly expanded board, Manus specifically on agent performance votes for the same kind of long horizon autonomy Emergent is rated on. A crowded week for A tier, not a falling score. - 2026-W34: rocket-new moved from rank 8 to rank 24. The board added nine new tools this week that scored between Emergent and Rocket.new on the combined weights, Subframe and Genspark chief among them. Reliability votes on later iterations undoing earlier decisions are still the thing to watch here, expansion or not. - 2026-W34: zite moved from rank 9 to rank 28. Three new entrants, Readdy, Caffeine and Uizard, scored ahead of it once the board expanded to 45 tracked tools this week. Zite's value and onboarding votes are unchanged, there is simply more of the field visible now. - 2026-W34: mocha moved from rank 10 to rank 31. Softgen and Floot both joined this week's expanded board just ahead of it. Mocha's own reliability votes are still soft, iteration getting harder as a project grows is the recurring complaint, and that is now more visible with more comparable tools sitting right next to it. - 2026-W34: trickle moved from rank 11 to rank 40. The single biggest rank move this week, though not because anything changed about Trickle. Eight of the 34 newly tracked tools, from Durable down to Mixo, scored above it once the board expanded past the original 11 app builders. It still anchors the bottom of C tier on scope rather than on execution. - 2026-W34: claude-code moved from rank 2 to rank 1. Took the coding agent board on agent performance votes. Long task retention is the axis voters keep citing, and the MCP tooling story widened the gap. - 2026-W34: cursor moved from rank 1 to rank 2. Lost the category lead by 147 votes. Editing experience votes are still the best in the category, but context management complaints on large repositories moved reliability against it. - 2026-W34: codex-cli moved from rank 5 to rank 3. Up two on reliability votes. Sandboxed execution and a diff to review before anything lands is exactly what the reliability axis rewards, and parallel task runs picked up agent performance votes on top. - 2026-W34: github-copilot moved from rank 3 to rank 4. Down one without losing a vote. Nothing went wrong here: the seats, the review workflows and the approval story are all intact, and it still carries more votes than anything else in its band. It simply got passed on raw agent quality by a tool voters rate higher on the axes that carry weight. - 2026-W34: windsurf moved from rank 4 to rank 5. Down one on trust. Model availability changing for existing users came up in a third of its vote comments this week, which outweighed a very strong free tier. --- # Pulse and analysis ## Every tool, every axis, one page: the comparison matrix is live URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/pulse/the-comparison-matrix-is-live Category: pulse Published: 2026-08-19 Updated: 2026-08-19 The board has had per tool scores and per duel vote splits since launch. What it did not have was a single view across the whole field on one axis at a time, so today we shipped the matrix. What it shows /matrix lists all 45 app builders down the left, with a tier rail in the same colour as the tool's band, and the ten scored axes across the top: design, speed, agent performance, reliability, integrations, SEO and GEO, scalability, value, API and MCP, and code ownership. Every cell is that tool's community score on that specific axis, not the blended overall number. The highest score in each column is marked, so you can read straight down a column and see who actually wins reliability, or value, or code ownership, without opening ten tool pages. The first column is sticky, so the tool name stays in view while you scroll a wide table on a phone. Nothing on the page needs JavaScript: it is a server rendered table, readable with scripts off and by any crawler that fetches the raw HTML. Why a single overall score was not enough The board rank already told you who wins on the published weights. It could not tell you, at a glance, whether the tool ranked ninth on the whole board might actually be the strongest single choice if code ownership is the only axis you care about. The matrix answers that question directly instead of making you reconstruct it from ten separate pages. What we did not change No tool's tier, community score or vote count moved because of this. The matrix reads the same underlying axis votes that already power the per axis bars on every tool page, it just lays all of them out next to each other. The methodology behind every axis, including the exact wording of what each one measures, is on the scoring page. ## What six points of value actually buys you URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/pulse/what-six-points-of-value-actually-buys Category: analysis Published: 2026-08-19 Updated: 2026-08-19 Value is the lightest of the ten weighted axes at 6 points, and it is also the one people assume they can predict from the pricing page alone. The votes say otherwise. Price and tier do not move together Framer starts at 5 EUR a month and sits in S tier. Lovable starts at 23 EUR a month and also sits in S tier, ahead of Framer on the overall board. At the other end, b12 starts at 29 EUR a month, the highest entry price of any tool we cover in this comparison, and sits in C tier. Being the most expensive did not buy it a higher band, and being the cheapest did not hold Framer back either. What the value axis actually measures is cost against a working month of real output, not the number printed on the pricing page. A 23 EUR plan that replaces a developer's afternoon every week is a better value vote than an 8 EUR plan that needs a paid upgrade the moment you add a second page. Where cheap genuinely wins Durable starts at 12 EUR a month and sits in B tier, ahead of several pricier tools on this exact axis, because the built in CRM and invoicing layer means builders stop paying for a second tool once the site is live. That is the pattern behind most of the strong value votes on this board: not the lowest sticker price, but the fewest additional tools you end up buying afterward. Hocoos, Mixo and Wegic all price between 8 and 12 EUR and sit in C tier. They are not being punished for being cheap. They are scoped to a narrower job than the S and A tier entries, and the value axis is scored against what a tool actually delivers, not against what it costs relative to a job it never attempted. Reading the axis on a tool page Every tool page shows its own value vote bar next to the other nine axes, and the comparison matrix lets you read the value column across all 45 app builders at once. Six points is a small share of the total, but it is the axis most likely to contradict your first assumption from the pricing page alone, which is exactly why we publish it separately instead of folding it into design or speed. ## The app builder board grows from 11 to 45 tracked tools URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/pulse/board-expands-from-11-to-45-tracked-app-builders Category: pulse Published: 2026-08-18 Updated: 2026-08-18 The app builder board went from 11 tracked tools to 45 this week, the biggest single change since launch. Every new entry got the same treatment as the originals: the ten axis brief, a panel test, and a full profile with strengths, weaknesses and pricing rather than a placeholder row. Lovable, Totalum and Bolt.new hold the top three exactly where they were. Two of the new entries land in S tier alongside them: Framer at 4th on a design led site generator built around the prompt from day one, and Firebase Studio at 6th on a full cloud IDE with Firebase and Genkit wired in from the first prompt. Why some familiar names moved down v0, Replit, Base44, Emergent, Rocket.new, Zite, Mocha and Trickle all show a rank change on the movers page this week, and none of it is a vote decline. Each of them got passed by one or more of the 34 new entries that scored ahead of them on the published weights. Base44 lost three places to Figma Make and Wix, for instance, not because its own integrations and value votes fell, but because two tools that score higher on those exact axes now have rows. What did not change The weights did not change, the scoring formula did not change, and no existing tool's community score moved because of this. A wider board just means more of the field is visible at once, which is the point of tracking 45 tools instead of 11. Full profiles for every new entry are live now, along with four new head to head duels between them. The weekly rank deltas, including which of the 34 new entries passed which original tool, are on the movers page. ## Framer and Firebase Studio debut straight into S tier URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/pulse/framer-and-firebase-studio-debut-in-s-tier Category: pulse Published: 2026-08-17 Updated: 2026-08-17 Of the 34 tools added to the app builder board this week, two cleared the S tier bar on debut: Framer at 889 and Firebase Studio at 881. Framer is not an app builder, and voters know it Framer generates marketing sites and content pages, not database backed applications with authenticated users. It sits in S tier anyway because the brief for that specific job, a fast, distinctive site with a real CMS behind it, is close to solved. Voters compared it directly against the newer app builders on design and it held its own, which is the whole reason it earns a row on this board rather than sitting somewhere else entirely. Firebase Studio brings a full IDE, not just a chat box Firebase Studio is Google's cloud workspace: a real VS Code style editor and terminal sit next to the App Prototyping Agent, and Firebase and Genkit are wired in with no service account detour. That integrations story is what carries it into S tier despite a first render voters called competent rather than distinctive. What this means for the rest of the board Neither tool displaced Lovable, Totalum or Bolt.new, whose own scores did not move. The practical effect is on the tools just below them: see the roster expansion piece for which of the original 11 tools picked up new competition this week. ## Durable takes the small business site duel over Hocoos, 60 to 40 URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/pulse/durable-wins-the-small-business-site-duel Category: pulse Published: 2026-08-16 Updated: 2026-08-16 The widest margin among this week's new head to head duels: Durable over Hocoos, roughly 60 percent to 40 percent. Both tools target the same job, a service business that needs a site today, and both generate pages, copy and a logo from a single prompt. Neither is attempting a custom application, and neither pretends otherwise in its own marketing. Where the vote actually splits Durable's built in CRM and invoicing layer is the deciding factor in the comments. Several voters described it as the reason they never opened a second tool after publishing the site, which is a different kind of praise than design quality and, on this particular duel, a more decisive one. Hocoos still takes a real minority of the vote, mostly from builders who wanted the site and nothing else, with no CRM to learn. A generated brand kit ships with both tools, so that is not the differentiator here. The honest read This is not a verdict on which is the better small business builder in the abstract, it is a verdict on this specific brief. Read the full duel for the vote count and the comment themes behind it. ## Why our board disagrees with enterprise scorecards, and why that is the point URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/pulse/why-our-board-disagrees-with-enterprise-scorecards Category: analysis Published: 2026-08-15 Updated: 2026-08-18 If you have read an enterprise comparison of AI app builders recently, our board will look wrong to you. That is expected, and the reason is published rather than hidden. The weights are the argument Agent Verdict weights ten axes to 100 points. Design takes 22 and raw speed takes 21. Together that is 43 points, nearly half the board, allocated to how good the output looks and how fast you get there. An enterprise scorecard typically allocates those two axes something between 10 and 20 points combined, and gives the difference to governance, compliance, support terms and vendor stability. Both allocations are defensible. They just answer different questions. Ours answers the question a builder asks on a Tuesday afternoon: which of these gets me to something I would show someone, fastest. An enterprise scorecard answers the question a procurement committee asks in a quarterly review. What this means for reading our ranking Three practical consequences: 1. A tool that wins reliability and code ownership can still sit second here. That is not a criticism of the tool, it is arithmetic. 2. A tool with a thin governance story can sit in S tier, because governance is not on our axis list at all. 3. Weekly movement is larger on this board than on scorecards, because design and speed votes are volatile and they carry the most weight. What we do not do We do not use stars, because a five point scale compresses the interesting differences into nothing. We do not publish a 0 to 100 index, because a single index invites a false comparison with scorecards built on different axes. We publish a tier band, a community score out of 1000 and the raw vote count, so you can see how much agreement is actually behind a position. The seeded votes disclosure Launch scores include votes from our own testing panel, badged Editor panel wherever they appear, because a board with no votes is not a board. Community votes accumulate on top and will outweigh the seed as volume grows. The full methodology, including every weight, is on the scoring page. ## What agent performance actually measures, and why it is only worth 11 points URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/pulse/what-agent-performance-actually-measures Category: analysis Published: 2026-08-13 Updated: 2026-08-13 Agent performance is worth 11 of the 100 points on this board. It measures how far a tool gets on a multi step brief without a human intervening, and how well it recovers from its own mistakes. It is also the axis most likely to produce an impressive demo, which is why it is worth explaining the gap between demo impact and vote weight. Variance is the tax on autonomy Our panel ran a forty minute unattended brief on every tool that claims long horizon autonomy. The best result was genuinely striking: real progress on backend logic that other builders skipped entirely. The second run on the same tool misread the brief in the first three minutes and then worked confidently for thirty seven more. The cost of a wrong plan scales with how long the agent is willing to keep going. Why builders discount it Read the comments on agent performance votes and the same calculation appears repeatedly. Autonomy is worth a lot when the plan is right and negative when it is wrong, and builders do not yet trust their ability to tell which they are getting before they pay for it. Design and speed have no equivalent downside. A fast tool is fast on the bad runs too. What would change the weight The weights are set from community voting behaviour, not from our opinion, and they are reviewed monthly. The thing that would move agent performance up is not more autonomy, it is earlier failure. A tool that stops and asks after three minutes when the plan is wrong would be worth more to voters than one that runs for forty and is occasionally brilliant. ## How the tier bands are earned, and why C tier is not a failing grade URL: https://www.agent-verdict.com/pulse/how-the-tier-bands-are-earned Category: analysis Published: 2026-08-11 Updated: 2026-08-14 The tier band is the primary unit on this board. The community score out of 1000 and the raw vote count sit underneath it, and the band is what people actually remember. The bands S tier is for tools that complete the full board brief, a real application with data, auth and a deploy target, and produce something presentable at the end. Four app builders clear that bar on the nose: Lovable, Totalum, Bolt.new and v0. Two more, Framer and Firebase Studio, score high enough on the same ten axes to sit in the band too, on a narrower job each is explicit about not going beyond, a marketing site rather than a full application for Framer, a cloud IDE and Firebase wiring rather than a distinctive first render for Firebase Studio. The band is a score threshold, not a promise that every S tier tool attempts the same brief. A tier completes the brief with a compromise that voters can name. Serviceable design, unpredictable cost, or a plan that fails late. B tier completes a narrower version of the brief, or completes it in a way that does not survive iteration. C tier does not attempt the brief. This is the part people misread. C tier is a scope statement Trickle sits in C tier and the panel note says plainly that judged as a page and form builder it is quick, cheap and fine. It is in C because it is not attempting the job the S tier entries are voted on, not because it does its own job badly. A board that only listed tools capable of the hardest brief would be shorter, less useful, and would quietly imply that a landing page builder is a bad application builder. It is not an application builder at all, and saying so is more useful than leaving it off. How a tool changes band Bands move on vote volume across the ten weighted axes, reviewed weekly and published on the movers page every Monday. A band change needs sustained movement, not one good week, which is why weekly rank changes are common and band changes are not.