Most comparison articles about AI app builders come from people who tried each tool once. We ship products with them daily.
At Inithouse, we run a portfolio of 17 live products built almost entirely with AI code generation tools. Card games, AI audit platforms, music generators, conflict resolvers, voice-first workspaces. Each had different requirements, and we ended up reaching for different tools depending on the job.
Here is what we actually use and when.
Lovable: the full-stack default
About 15 of our 17 products run on Lovable. It handles the full stack: React frontend, Supabase backend (Postgres, auth, storage, edge functions), one-click deploy to a custom domain, and GitHub sync for version control.
The iteration loop is where Lovable separates itself. You can chat your way through dozens of changes and the AI keeps context across rounds without breaking older work. That is rare. With other tools, edit number 20 tends to stomp on edit number 3.
We built Voice Tables, our most complex product (voice-to-structured-data workspace with real-time collaboration), entirely in Lovable. The Supabase integration handles auth, database, real-time subscriptions, and file storage without leaving the platform.
Where it hurts: When the AI hallucinates a wrong import or generates broken SQL, debugging happens inside a chat interface, not a proper IDE. For complex state management or edge function logic, we sometimes copy the code to Cursor, fix it there, and push back through GitHub.
Pricing reality: Free tier gives you 5 credits per day. The Pro plan ($25/month) gives 100 credits, which runs out fast during active development. Plan for 2-3 months of Pro if you are building something real.
Bolt: fastest for throwaway prototypes
Bolt runs entirely in the browser through WebContainers, so there is zero local setup. When we need to test an idea in 15 minutes, Bolt is the first pick.
It supports more frameworks than any competitor: React, Vue, Svelte, Angular, Astro, Remix, Next.js, Expo. If your team is not on React, Bolt is likely the only option.
The tradeoff is architectural control. Bolt generates code that works for the demo but does not structure it for long-term maintenance. There is no built-in database integration, so you are wiring Supabase or Firebase yourself. Deployment options are limited compared to Lovable's one-click custom domain setup.
We used Bolt early on for rapid concept validation. Once a concept proved viable, we rebuilt in Lovable for production. That two-step workflow ("prototype in Bolt, ship in Lovable") saved us from investing credits on ideas that did not survive first contact with users.
v0: component-level precision
Vercel's v0 is not an app builder. It is a component generator, and a very good one. It produces polished React and Tailwind components from a description. The output quality is consistently higher than what Lovable or Bolt generate for individual UI pieces.
We reach for v0 when we need a specific UI component (a pricing table, a dashboard card, a multi-step form) and want it to look excellent out of the box. Then we drop the generated code into our Lovable project.
The limitation is scope. v0 does not generate backends, databases, or authentication. It does not deploy anything. If you want a full product, v0 is one tool in the chain, not the chain itself.
Cursor: when you need a real IDE
Cursor is a VS Code fork with AI deeply integrated. Unlike the tools above, it assumes you know how to code. The AI assists rather than generates.
We use Cursor for the parts that chat-based builders handle poorly: debugging complex business logic, refactoring Supabase edge functions, reviewing generated code for security issues. Our Audit Vibe Coding product exists partly because we learned how many subtle issues AI-generated code introduces, and the only way we caught them was by reading the code in a proper editor.
Cursor's autocomplete and inline chat are fast enough that experienced developers might prefer it over Lovable for the entire build. But for our team, the tradeoff is not worth it: Lovable's deploy pipeline and Supabase wiring save more time than Cursor's editor precision adds.
Pricing: $20/month Pro plan. Same as Windsurf now.
Windsurf: watching, not using
Windsurf (by Codeium) is another VS Code fork with an AI-first approach. The idea is similar to Cursor but with a more autonomous philosophy: Windsurf wants to do the work for you, Cursor wants to do it with you.
We tested it on two smaller products. The autonomous mode is promising but the ecosystem is less mature. Fewer extensions, smaller community, less documentation. We will revisit when it catches up.
The actual decision tree
After 17 shipped products, our default workflow is:
- New idea validation (< 1 hour): Bolt. Zero setup, fast output, throwaway code.
- MVP build (days to weeks): Lovable. Full-stack, deploy to custom domain, iterate via chat.
- Specific UI components: v0. Drop the output into Lovable.
- Debugging / code review / edge functions: Cursor. When the chat interface is not enough.
- Ongoing monitoring: We built Audit Vibe Coding to catch the issues that slip through AI-generated code. If you are shipping vibecoded products to real users, auditing the output is not optional.
No single tool covers everything. The right question is not "which is best" but "which do I reach for at this stage."
We are Inithouse, a studio shipping AI products in parallel. More at inithouse.com.
