Head to head / curated pair / cycle 04
Floot vs Lovable
Both products were given the identical 9 prompt vibeOps specification, 5 times each. Nothing on this page is an impression, all of it is a measurement from the same harness.
Visual output is a clear tier above its index neighbours and the data model it produced for prompt 2 needed no correction. It has almost nothing for the operator: no delivery history for webhooks, no rate limiting on the generated endpoints and no durable queue, so prompts 4 to 6 are where the score is lost rather than earned.
Strongest single shot agent in the cohort. It read the tenancy requirement in prompt 1 without being told twice and carried the organisation scope through every later prompt. It lost points on the machine facing surface: webhook signing needed an explicit follow up in 3 of 5 runs, and the generated API had no idempotency handling.
Index gap
11.88
Lovable leads
Axes won
0 / 10
Floot versus Lovable, of 10 axes
Lower turn latency
Lovable
85.2 s per prompt
Higher pass rate
Lovable
82.2%
Every measurement, side by side
Cyan marks the better figure on each row. The delta column is the first product minus the second.
| Measurement | Floot | Lovable | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite index | 68.66 | 80.54 | -11.88 |
| Agent performance (weight 18) | 72.0 | 89.0 | -17.00 |
| Reliability (weight 18) | 68.9 | 82.2 | -13.30 |
| Scalability (weight 13) | 66.0 | 78.0 | -12.00 |
| SEO and GEO (weight 12) | 70.0 | 75.0 | -5.00 |
| API and MCP (weight 9) | 55.0 | 66.0 | -11.00 |
| Integrations (weight 8) | 64.0 | 86.0 | -22.00 |
| Design output (weight 7) | 84.0 | 92.0 | -8.00 |
| Turn latency score (weight 7) | 71.6 | 76.5 | -4.90 |
| Value (weight 5) | 70.0 | 72.0 | -2.00 |
| Code ownership (weight 3) | 62.0 | 79.0 | -17.00 |
| Median turn latency, seconds per prompt | 91.1 | 85.2 | +5.90 |
| p10 seconds | 46.1 | 52.6 | -6.50 |
| p90 seconds | 174.2 | 133.1 | +41.10 |
| Full spec, minutes, derived | 13.7 min | 12.8 min | +0.90 |
| Executions failed | 6 | 2 | +4.00 |
| HTML bytes, no JS | 19.0 KB | 18.0 KB | +1.0 KB |
| LCP milliseconds | 2,020 | 2,140 | -120.00 |
| CLS | 0.050 | 0.060 | -0.01 |
| Entry price | USD 25 / month | USD 25 / month, billed monthly | n/a |
Screenshot diff
Both landing pages, captured by the lab on 14 Aug 2026 at 1440 by 900. Stored locally, never hotlinked.
Floot, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Lovable, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Speed spread on a shared scale
Floot
46.1 / 91.1 / 174.2 seconds
Lovable
52.6 / 85.2 / 133.1 seconds
Axis by axis, who wins
Floot wins 0 of 10
- No axis won outright.
Lovable wins 10 of 10
- Agent performance89.0
- Reliability82.2
- Scalability78.0
- SEO and GEO75.0
- API and MCP66.0
- Integrations86.0
- Design output92.0
- Turn latency score76.5
- Value72.0
- Code ownership79.0
Verdict
Lovable takes the composite by 11.88 points. It wins on the weighted total, but the axis table is where the real decision sits: Floot takes 0 axes and Lovable takes 10.
If the work in front of you is mostly interface, weight the design and turn latency rows. If it is a product with an API, webhooks and background jobs, weight agent performance, reliability and the API and MCP row, which together carry 45.00 of the 100 index points on this board. If the project has to outlive its vendor, read the code ownership row first and treat everything else as secondary.
Both products in this comparison were measured in the same cycle, on the same specification, by the same harness. The per run data for each is on its product page and in /api/runs.json.