Head to head / curated pair / cycle 04
Zite vs Rocket.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.
Produces attractive interfaces quickly and holds a consistent visual language across pages. It is not built for the second half of this specification: rate limiting, signed webhooks and durable jobs were all missing or hand waved, and the exported project could not boot outside the platform.
Comfortable with the first four prompts and visibly out of depth after that. Webhook signing was absent in every run and the job queue in prompt 6 was a cron style loop with no idempotency, which the replay test caught immediately.
Index gap
1.38
Rocket.new leads
Axes won
3 / 6
Zite versus Rocket.new, of ten axes
Faster median
Rocket.new
107.2 s per prompt
Higher pass rate
Rocket.new
60.0%
Every measurement, side by side
Cyan marks the better figure on each row. The delta column is the first product minus the second.
| Measurement | Zite | Rocket.new | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite index | 58.78 | 60.16 | -1.38 |
| Agent performance (weight 18) | 68.0 | 70.0 | -2.00 |
| Reliability (weight 18) | 60.0 | 60.0 | +0.00 |
| Scalability (weight 13) | 58.0 | 61.0 | -3.00 |
| SEO and GEO (weight 12) | 60.0 | 57.0 | +3.00 |
| API and MCP (weight 9) | 47.0 | 52.0 | -5.00 |
| Integrations (weight 8) | 55.0 | 59.0 | -4.00 |
| Design output (weight 7) | 77.0 | 75.0 | +2.00 |
| Speed (weight 7) | 27.7 | 29.3 | -1.60 |
| Value (weight 5) | 72.0 | 71.0 | +1.00 |
| Code ownership (weight 3) | 48.0 | 58.0 | -10.00 |
| Median seconds per prompt | 113.4 | 107.2 | +6.20 |
| p10 seconds | 60.2 | 53.3 | +6.90 |
| p90 seconds | 193.1 | 217.0 | -23.90 |
| Executions failed | 10 | 11 | -1.00 |
| HTML bytes, no JS | 10.0 KB | 7.0 KB | +3072.00 |
| LCP milliseconds | 2,740 | 3,260 | -520.00 |
| CLS | 0.110 | 0.160 | -0.05 |
| Entry price EUR | 16.00 | 17.00 | -1.00 |
Screenshot diff
Both landing pages, captured by the lab on 14 Aug 2026 at 1440 by 900. Stored locally, never hotlinked.
Zite, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Rocket.new, captured 14 Aug 2026.
Speed spread on a shared scale
Zite
60.2 / 113.4 / 193.1 seconds
Rocket.new
53.3 / 107.2 / 217.0 seconds
Axis by axis, who wins
Zite wins 3 of 10
- SEO and GEO60.0
- Design output77.0
- Value72.0
Rocket.new wins 6 of 10
- Agent performance70.0
- Scalability61.0
- API and MCP52.0
- Integrations59.0
- Speed29.3
- Code ownership58.0
Verdict
Rocket.new takes the composite by 1.38 points. That is inside the noise of a five run sample, so the correct conclusion is that these two are tied on the composite and the choice should come down to a single axis you care about.
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.