Head to head / curated pair / cycle 04
Lovable vs Bolt.new
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.
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.
Very fast to a running artifact and the code that comes out is plain and portable, which is why it takes the highest code ownership score here. It burns tokens quickly on the longer prompts: two runs stalled mid way through prompt 6 and had to be recorded as partial because the allowance ran out before the job queue was finished.
Index gap
5.86
Lovable leads
Axes won
8 / 2
Lovable versus Bolt.new, of 10 axes
Lower turn latency
Bolt.new
82.1 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 | Lovable | Bolt.new | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite index | 80.54 | 74.68 | +5.86 |
| Agent performance (weight 18) | 89.0 | 81.0 | +8.00 |
| Reliability (weight 18) | 82.2 | 80.0 | +2.20 |
| Scalability (weight 13) | 78.0 | 70.0 | +8.00 |
| SEO and GEO (weight 12) | 75.0 | 66.0 | +9.00 |
| API and MCP (weight 9) | 66.0 | 58.0 | +8.00 |
| Integrations (weight 8) | 86.0 | 72.0 | +14.00 |
| Design output (weight 7) | 92.0 | 85.0 | +7.00 |
| Turn latency score (weight 7) | 76.5 | 79.4 | -2.90 |
| Value (weight 5) | 72.0 | 71.0 | +1.00 |
| Code ownership (weight 3) | 79.0 | 88.0 | -9.00 |
| Median turn latency, seconds per prompt | 85.2 | 82.1 | +3.10 |
| p10 seconds | 52.6 | 51.8 | +0.80 |
| p90 seconds | 133.1 | 136.0 | -2.90 |
| Full spec, minutes, derived | 12.8 min | 12.3 min | +0.50 |
| Executions failed | 2 | 1 | +1.00 |
| HTML bytes, no JS | 18.0 KB | 12.0 KB | +6.0 KB |
| LCP milliseconds | 2,140 | 2,460 | -320.00 |
| CLS | 0.060 | 0.090 | -0.03 |
| Entry price | USD 25 / month, billed monthly | 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.
Lovable, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Bolt.new, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Speed spread on a shared scale
Lovable
52.6 / 85.2 / 133.1 seconds
Bolt.new
51.8 / 82.1 / 136.0 seconds
Axis by axis, who wins
Lovable wins 8 of 10
- Agent performance89.0
- Reliability82.2
- Scalability78.0
- SEO and GEO75.0
- API and MCP66.0
- Integrations86.0
- Design output92.0
- Value72.0
Bolt.new wins 2 of 10
- Turn latency score79.4
- Code ownership88.0
Verdict
Lovable takes the composite by 5.86 points. It wins on the weighted total, but the axis table is where the real decision sits: Lovable takes 8 axes and Bolt.new takes 2.
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.