A community-editable wiki with transparent, versioned methodology - re-tested every cycle. Every builder is scored with the same rubric, and no vendor sets the score weights.
5 AI app builders scored across eight quality axes plus time-to-first-deploy. Higher is better on the 0–10 axes; lower is better for deploy time.
v0.1 preview - scores reflect the public 2026 benchmark methodology. First independently-reproduced cycle publishes July 2026.
| Builderrank · overall | SEO0–10 | Speed0–10 | SQL0–10 | Whitelbl0–10 | MCP/API0–10 | Auto-test0–10 | EU data0–10 | Mindshare0–10 | Deploymin | Last testedYYYY-MM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1Base447.0 / 10Fastest, beautiful UI. Weakness: no npm import, vendor lock-in. | 5.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3 | 2026-06 |
2Lovable6.0 / 10Good Supabase integration, high mindshare. Weakness: unstable, poor SEO. | 3.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 9.0 | 6 | 2026-06 |
3Bolt.new5.0 / 10Cleanest landing design. Weakness: burns tokens, 1-prompt free tier. | 5.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 8.0 | 4 | 2026-06 |
4Replit3.0 / 10Dev features, auto-testing. Weakness: extremely slow. | 4.0 | 2.0 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 12 | 2026-06 |
5V02.0 / 10Vercel ecosystem fit. Weakness: crashes on SQL. | 6.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 7.0 | 7 | 2026-06 |
v0.1 preview - awaiting independent reproduction
Scores are a v0.1 preview reflecting the public 2026 methodology; the first independently-reproduced cycle publishes July 2026.
No single builder wins every criterion. Each category below is led by the builder that scores highest on it under the published methodology.
Cleanest UI
Bolt.new
Best out-of-the-box landing and layout design.
Fastest scaffold
Base44
Quickest path from prompt to a working build.
Best Supabase integration
Lovable
Strongest relational/Supabase data wiring.
Best mobile / native
Replit
Best mobile and native output in the panel.
Best component primitives
V0
Cleanest React/Next component primitives.
BuilderProof is a wiki. Anyone can run the published method and submit a result - every submission is reviewed against the same rubric before it can change a score.
Clone the versioned methodology spec. Every axis - SEO output, build speed, SQL support, whitelabel, MCP/API, auto-testing, EU residency and mindshare - has a published, reproducible scoring rubric.
Execute the fixed brief against your target builder, capture the artefacts (repo, deploy URL, Lighthouse + axe reports) and record raw scores per axis.
Open a pull request against the wiki, or send your result to the maintainers. Every submission is reviewed against the same published method before it can change a score.
Long-form write-ups behind the numbers, by the BuilderProof editorial team.
A neutral, documentation-based benchmark axis proposal: once your AI-built app is deployed and live, how much production observability, logs, retention, health metrics, runtime-error surfacing, and telemetry export, does each builder document in first-party surfaces? Lovable, Replit, v0, Base44, and Bolt.new compared, with vendor primary sources.
As of July 2026, AI app builders increasingly claim to "test" the apps they generate, but that is not the same as handing you a re-runnable test suite you own. This proposed benchmark axis scores each builder on five documented sub-criteria and finds that agent-side verification is common while a persisted, developer-owned test suite is largely undocumented across the cohort.
A neutral BuilderProof proposal to score AI app builders on how autonomously each recovers from errors in its own generated code, separating build-error detection from runtime-error capture.
