Head to head / curated pair / cycle 04
Lovable vs v0
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.
Fastest median in the cohort and the highest blind design score by a clear margin. The weakness is operational: background jobs in prompt 6 were implemented as fire and forget route handlers in 4 of 5 runs, which is not a queue, and the admin panel needed manual work on staff gating.
Index gap
3.18
Lovable leads
Axes won
5 / 5
Lovable versus v0, of ten axes
Faster median
v0
65.2 s per prompt
Higher pass rate
v0
84.4%
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 | v0 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite index | 77.87 | 74.69 | +3.18 |
| Agent performance (weight 18) | 89.0 | 80.0 | +9.00 |
| Reliability (weight 18) | 82.2 | 84.4 | -2.20 |
| Scalability (weight 13) | 78.0 | 72.0 | +6.00 |
| SEO and GEO (weight 12) | 75.0 | 76.0 | -1.00 |
| API and MCP (weight 9) | 66.0 | 60.0 | +6.00 |
| Integrations (weight 8) | 86.0 | 66.0 | +20.00 |
| Design output (weight 7) | 92.0 | 94.0 | -2.00 |
| Speed (weight 7) | 36.9 | 48.2 | -11.30 |
| Value (weight 5) | 74.0 | 68.0 | +6.00 |
| Code ownership (weight 3) | 79.0 | 86.0 | -7.00 |
| Median seconds per prompt | 85.2 | 65.2 | +20.00 |
| p10 seconds | 52.6 | 44.9 | +7.70 |
| p90 seconds | 133.1 | 104.1 | +29.00 |
| Executions failed | 2 | 1 | +1.00 |
| HTML bytes, no JS | 18.0 KB | 27.0 KB | -9216.00 |
| LCP milliseconds | 2,140 | 1,620 | +520.00 |
| CLS | 0.060 | 0.040 | +0.02 |
| Entry price EUR | 21.00 | 18.00 | +3.00 |
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.
v0, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Speed spread on a shared scale
Lovable
52.6 / 85.2 / 133.1 seconds
v0
44.9 / 65.2 / 104.1 seconds
Axis by axis, who wins
Lovable wins 5 of 10
- Agent performance89.0
- Scalability78.0
- API and MCP66.0
- Integrations86.0
- Value74.0
v0 wins 5 of 10
- Reliability84.4
- SEO and GEO76.0
- Design output94.0
- Speed48.2
- Code ownership86.0
Verdict
Lovable takes the composite by 3.18 points. It wins on the weighted total, but the axis table is where the real decision sits: Lovable takes 5 axes and v0 takes 5.
If the work in front of you is mostly interface, weight the design and speed 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 of the 100 index points. 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.