Vibe Coding Explained: 5 Tools That Turn Ideas Into Apps
A designer with zero coding experience built a full task management app in 22 minutes. She typed what she wanted, and AI wrote roughly 3,000 lines of React code.
Key Takeaways:
- • Lovable produces the cleanest code — working Next.js app with Supabase integration in 18 minutes, rated 8/10 for code quality
- • All tools break on complex logic — security holes, performance issues, and conditional bugs appear once you move beyond simple prototypes
- • v0 by Vercel wins for UI components — production-quality React components in 8 minutes, but no backend or state management
- • Vibe coding won't replace developers — great for prototypes and MVPs, but the last 20% (polish, security, scaling) still requires human expertise
That's vibe coding. The app had user authentication, drag-and-drop boards, and a dark theme. It wasn't perfect—the sorting logic broke when you dragged tasks between columns—but it was real, functional software built faster than most developers could scaffold a project.
The term comes from Andrej Karpathy, former Tesla AI director and OpenAI founding member. He described a future where you just explain the "vibe" of what you want and AI handles the rest. In 2026, that future is partially here.
We tested five tools that claim to turn natural language into working applications. Some delivered. Others fell apart on anything beyond a landing page.
What Is Vibe Coding?
Traditional coding: You write every function, every CSS class, every database query by hand.
AI-assisted coding (like GitHub Copilot): AI suggests code completions while you write. You're still driving—AI just fills in the predictable parts.
Vibe coding: You describe what you want in plain English. AI generates the entire implementation. You review, tweak, and deploy.
Example prompt:
"Build a task management app with user authentication, drag-and-drop boards organized by status, and a dark theme. Use Supabase for the backend."
The AI doesn't just autocomplete your code. It architects the entire application—database schema, API routes, frontend components, state management, styling.
The name "vibe coding" captures something important: you're communicating intent and aesthetics, not implementation details. You care about the vibe. AI handles the syntax.
How We Tested These Tools
We used the same prompt across all five tools:
We measured:
- Time from prompt to working prototype
- Whether the generated code actually ran without errors
- Code quality (structure, readability, best practices)
- How well it handled follow-up refinement prompts
- Whether the final product was deployable to production
We also tested each tool with progressively harder requests to see where they broke.
5 Vibe Coding Tools Tested
Lovable
lovable.devLovable generated the most production-ready code in our test. It created a complete Next.js app with proper file structure, TypeScript types, and Supabase integration that actually worked on the first run.
The drag-and-drop functionality used react-beautiful-dnd, and the database schema included proper foreign keys and row-level security policies. When we asked it to add a search filter, it modified the existing query logic cleanly instead of duplicating code.
Pros
- ✓Supabase integration includes auth, database, and RLS policies
- ✓Code is clean enough to hand off to developers
- ✓GitHub export lets you continue development locally
- ✓One-click deploy to Vercel
Cons
- ×Gets confused with complex conditional logic (had to retry our filtering request twice)
- ×Styling can feel generic—lots of shadcn/ui defaults
- ×Expensive for hobbyists ($20/month for serious use)
Time to working prototype: 18 minutes | Code quality: 8/10 | Production-ready: Yes, with minor tweaks
Bolt.new
bolt.newBolt.new runs entirely in your browser and gives you instant preview as it codes. Watching it work feels like magic—you see components appear in real-time as the AI types.
It built our task app in around 25 minutes, using React with Vite and a local JSON file instead of Supabase. When we asked it to switch to Supabase, it rewrote the data layer but introduced a bug where tasks duplicated on page refresh.
Pros
- ✓Instant live preview feels incredibly fast
- ✓Supports multiple frameworks (React, Vue, Svelte, Astro)
- ✓Free tier is surprisingly generous
- ✓Can install npm packages on the fly
Cons
- ×Slows down noticeably on projects with more than roughly 15 files
- ×Backend integration requires more hand-holding than Lovable
- ×No built-in deployment—you export and deploy elsewhere
Time to working prototype: 25 minutes | Code quality: 7/10 | Production-ready: Needs debugging
v0 by Vercel
v0.devv0 isn't trying to build full apps. It generates React components with Tailwind CSS and shadcn/ui, and it does that one thing exceptionally well.
When we fed it our task management prompt, it created beautiful UI components for the board layout, task cards, and modals. But there was no state management, no database, no authentication. Just gorgeous static components.
We then asked it to generate a login form, a dashboard layout, and a settings panel. Each component looked production-quality. You can copy-paste them into your Next.js project and they just work.
Pros
- ✓Components are genuinely beautiful and accessible
- ✓Code is clean, documented, and follows React best practices
- ✓Generates multiple variations you can choose from
- ✓Works perfectly with existing Next.js projects
Cons
- ×No backend logic whatsoever—purely UI
- ×Can't build complete applications on its own
- ×You still need to wire up state and data yourself
Time to UI components: 8 minutes | Code quality: 9/10 | Production-ready: For UI only
Cursor + Claude
cursor.shCursor is a fork of VS Code with AI deeply integrated. Using it with Claude Sonnet (Anthropic's model) feels less like vibe coding and more like pair programming with someone who reads your mind.
We described our task management app in the Cursor chat, and it scaffolded the Next.js project, set up Supabase, created the database schema, built the components, and wrote around 40% of the code in one go. But it didn't automate everything—we still had to review each file, fix a few TypeScript errors, and manually create the Supabase tables.
The advantage? We could see exactly what it was doing at every step. When it made a mistake in the auth flow, we spotted it immediately and asked it to fix just that function.
Pros
- ✓Works with existing codebases—doesn't force you into a template
- ✓Most flexible option for experienced developers
- ✓Can edit multiple files simultaneously based on your prompt
- ✓You retain full control over every line of code
Cons
- ×Requires coding knowledge—not truly "no code"
- ×You'll spend time fixing errors and filling in gaps
- ×Slower than Lovable or Bolt for complete beginners
Time to working prototype: 35 minutes | Code quality: 9/10 | Production-ready: Yes
For a detailed breakdown of Cursor's capabilities, see our Cursor Pro review.
Replit Agent
replit.comReplit Agent builds, runs, and deploys your app entirely in the cloud. You never touch your local machine. Just type what you want, and it codes, debugs, and hosts it.
It built our task management app using Flask (Python) and SQLite instead of our requested Next.js and Supabase stack. When we asked why, it said Flask was "simpler for rapid prototyping." Fair enough, but that's not what we asked for.
The app worked on the first try, which was impressive. But the code quality was rough— inline styles, no component structure, and the drag-and-drop was faked with page refreshes instead of real drag events.
Pros
- ✓Deployment is automatic—no configuration needed
- ✓Great for quick prototypes and MVPs
- ✓Works with multiple languages and frameworks
- ✓Debugging is built-in and AI-assisted
Cons
- ×Code quality is hit-or-miss—sometimes genuinely bad
- ×Doesn't always follow your tech stack preferences
- ×Debugging AI-generated code is harder than you'd expect
- ×Locked into Replit's hosting (you can export, but it's clunky)
Time to working prototype: 12 minutes | Code quality: 5/10 | Production-ready: No
Quick Comparison
| Tool | Pricing | Tech Stack | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lovable | $20/mo | Next.js, Supabase | Production full-stack apps |
| Bolt.new | Free, $20/mo Pro | React, Vue, Svelte, Astro | Fast prototypes, multiple frameworks |
| v0 by Vercel | Free tier, paid credits | React, Tailwind, shadcn/ui | UI components only |
| Cursor + Claude | $20/mo + API costs | Any (you choose) | Developers who want control |
| Replit Agent | $25/mo | Python, Node, many others | Quick MVPs, learning |
When Vibe Coding Falls Apart
Every tool we tested broke in predictable ways.
Complex Business Logic
We asked Lovable to add a feature where tasks automatically move to "Done" when all subtasks are completed, but only if the task was created more than 24 hours ago, and only for users with admin privileges.
It generated code that looked right but didn't work. The conditional checks were in the wrong order, and it forgot to handle the case where a user deleted a subtask. We spent 30 minutes debugging logic that would've taken a developer 10 minutes to write correctly.
Performance and Scaling
None of these tools think about performance. Bolt.new generated a component that fetched all tasks from the database on every keystroke in the search box. That's fine for 20 tasks. Catastrophic for 20,000.
You can prompt it to add debouncing and pagination, but the AI doesn't proactively consider these things. It optimizes for "works now" not "works at scale."
Security
Replit Agent exposed API keys in the frontend code. Lovable created Supabase RLS policies, but they had holes—users could read other users' tasks by guessing UUIDs.
If you're building anything with sensitive data, you absolutely need someone with security knowledge to review the generated code. These tools don't think adversarially.
Debugging AI-Generated Code
When something breaks in code you wrote, you can trace back through your logic. When AI writes the code, you're debugging someone else's work—except that "someone" is a probabilistic model that doesn't actually understand what it wrote.
We hit a bug in Bolt where tasks were duplicating. The AI suggested five different fixes. None worked. We eventually fixed it manually by rewriting the state management from scratch.
Which Tool Should You Use?
For founders validating an idea
Lovable or Bolt.new
Both can get you from concept to working prototype in under an hour. Lovable produces cleaner code if you think you'll keep building. Bolt is faster for throwaway demos.
For designers who need interactive prototypes
v0 by Vercel
It won't build the whole app, but it'll generate pixel-perfect React components you can hand off to developers. The quality is consistently high.
For developers who want a productivity boost
Cursor + Claude
You keep control over architecture and can work with existing codebases. It's more like a very smart assistant than a replacement for coding.
For learning to code
Replit Agent
See working code immediately, experiment freely, and learn by reading what the AI generates. Just don't ship what it builds without serious review.
Reality check:
None of these tools will replace developers for anything complex or customer-facing. They're excellent for prototypes, internal tools, and getting 80% of the way there. That last 20%—polish, performance, security, maintainability—still requires human expertise.
Related Reading
For a broader look at how AI coding tools compare across different use cases, see our AI coding tools comparison which covers Cursor, GitHub Copilot, and other options in depth.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is vibe coding?
Vibe coding is a term coined by Andrej Karpathy that describes using natural language to describe what you want an application to do, and having AI generate the code automatically. Instead of writing code line-by-line, you explain the "vibe" of what you need and AI handles the implementation.
Is vibe coding the same as no-code platforms?
Not exactly. Traditional no-code platforms like Webflow or Bubble use visual builders with drag-and-drop components. Vibe coding tools generate actual code from text prompts, giving you more flexibility and the ability to export and modify the code. However, both aim to make app development accessible to non-developers.
Which vibe coding tool is most reliable for production apps?
Based on our testing, Lovable and Cursor + Claude are the most reliable for production work. Lovable provides cleaner code structure and proper database integration out of the box, while Cursor gives you more control by working within a professional IDE. Both require some technical knowledge for debugging and deployment.
Can vibe coding tools replace developers?
No. While these tools can generate functional prototypes quickly, they struggle with complex business logic, performance optimization, security considerations, and maintaining large codebases. They work best as productivity multipliers for developers or as prototyping tools for founders validating ideas. The last 20% of building production software—polish, scalability, security—still requires human expertise.
Last updated: February 17, 2026 | Published by OpenAI Tools Hub Team