Prompt to
Product

A designer's field test — building the same news app across 4 AI builders to find out who actually delivers on the brief

ROLE

UX Researcher

BUILDERS

Lovable, v0, Bolt, Emergent

YEAR

2026

01 - OVERVIEW

A designer's field test

This project started as a question with no clean answer — with so many AI app builders launching at once, which one is actually worth using? Rather than read about them, I built the same app in four of them using the same single prompt and evaluated each on output quality, design decision, iteration responsiveness, and free tier usability.

"What started as a tool comparison became something more useful: a lesson in why the design process still matters even when AI is doing the building."

02 - DISCOVERY

Jumping in blind

This project began without a plan — no design process, no PRD, no defined feature list.This project began without a plan — no design process, no PRD, no defined feature list. Just an idea and a builder. Replit was the first tool used, not as part of the evaluation, but as a starting point to see what would come out of building with no direction.


What emerged was rough but immediately useful — each iteration revealed what was missing, what felt off, and what the app actually needed to work. Features weren't decided upfront, they were discovered through building.

Back to basics

After the discovery phase with Replit, it was tiem for formalize what had been learned. The features that surfaced through iteration, the interactions that felt missing, and the design decisions that needed revisiting all pointed to the same thing — a clearer picture of what the app needed to be. That clarity became the PRD. Rather than a spec written in advance, it was built from experience — a documented standard every builder in this evaluation is measured against. Every builder starts from the same place and gets the same opportunity to get there.

What Replit revealed

Navigation gaps, missing states, and interactions the brief never specified — all of which became requirements.

Why it mattered

The discovery phase produced the PRD. Every builder in this evaluation starts form the same place and gets the same opportunity.

initial_prompt.txt
Abridged Verison of Product Requirements
Project: AI App Builder Evaluation — Mobile News App Contributors: Charlyn Truong Status: In Progress What & Why Testing four AI app builders — Lovable, v0, Bolt, Emergent — by building the same news app with the same prompt across all four. Goal is to observe, not rank. Replit used as discovery and control standard. The Problem Too many AI app builders, not enough clarity on which actually performs. This project creates a firsthand, structured comparison so designers and early-stage builders can make an informed choice. Objectives - Observe how each builder interprets the same prompt - Track how well each handles iteration and small corrections - Document what's built out of the box vs what needs prompting - Compare all outputs against Replit as a neutral baseline What Success Looks Like Must have - Interest selection screen functional on first output - Feed renders with article cards and category tags - Cards are tappable and attempt to open article - All iteration prompts reflected in final output - Builder generates an app name and basic design system - Builder can publish or share a live preview - Builder allows rollback to previous version Nice to have - Working article links - Consistent color system across screens - Builder suggests design alternatives when prompted The App — 8 Core Features 01 Interest Selection - Onboarding screen to pick topics, personalizes feed 02 Article Cards - Headline + 2–3 sentence summary, tappable 03 Summary Modal - In-app overlay with key points before full article 04 Engagement Actions - Upvote, save, share, comment per article 05 Navigation - Bottom nav — Home, Trending, Profile 06 Read Indicator - Visual marker on already-viewed articles 07 Commenting - View and post comments inside the modal 08 User Profile - Saved articles and preferences, no login required Not Building Real news API · Auth / login · Backend · Production deployment · Cross-builder feature parity Evaluation Dimensions Output Quality · Design Quality · Ease of Use · Iteration Handling · Free Tier Limits Builders Lovable · v0 · Bolt · Emergent · Replit (control only)
Mobile-firstNews appCore FeaturesSame prompt, 4 builders

03 - THE BUILDERS

Candidates for the job

Before any builder was tested, the app was built first in Replit with nothing more than a problem statement. No wireframes, no feature list, no design direction. What came out of that first build wasn't polished — but it was enough to react to. Seeing the app exist in any form made it immediately clear what was messing, what felt wrong, and what interactions the experience actually needed. Every friction point, every missing feature, every UI decision that needed revisiting became a requirement. Replit wasn't part of the evaluation — it was the discovery phase that made the evaluation possible, and the standard every builder is measured against.

Lovable logo
Lovable
Has the most personality — strong visual output and the most consistent interpretation of the brief across iterations.
View case study
v0 by Vercel logo
v0 by Vercel
Best organization of previous versions, but the version history can get confusing quickly.
View case study
Bolt logo
Bolt
Reports "Missing Project Files" — inconsistent output made it the hardest builder to iterate with.
View case study
Emergent logo
Emergent
Like the tabs for the project — but publish to web is behind a paywall on the free tier.
View case study

04 - ITERATION WALKTHROUGHS

See what each builder made

Pages
Home
Comparing Lovable, v0, Bolt & Emergent
Lovable — Home
Lovable
v0 — Home
v0
Bolt — Home
Bolt
Emergent — Home
Emergent

05 - BUG SPOTLIGHT

When the builder doesn't fix it

Not every issue gets resolved across iterations. This is one that persisted — the comments background bug that revealed how builders handle state management differently.

v3Previous
v3 recording
Issue
Background reverts to the feed page when comments open — article context is lost entirely
⚠ Bug present
v4Current
v4 recording
Status
Partially fixed — exits to article modal correctly but background still reverts while open
◑ Partially fixed
Dimension
Rating
Assessment
01
Output Quality
Aesthetic UI, organization, information architeture, creatvitity
02
Ease of Use
Able to navigate page with minimal to zero, beginner friendly, limited confusion
03
Iteration Handling
Prompt to changes immediately, takes everything into account, iteration makes sense and made obvious
04
Free Tier Limits
Tokens / prompts in a day, able to obtain all features and publish final product

06 - SCORECARD AND THOUGHTFUL ADDITIONS

How they stacked up

Not every issue gets resolved across iterations. This is one that persisted — the comments background bug that revealed how builders handle state management differently.

ReplitLovablev0BoltEmergent
Overall rating
My rating
3.75 / 5
4.5 / 5
3.5 / 5
2.5 / 5
2.5 / 5
Thoughtful additions
Web to mobile view
Working links
Expo Go preview
Live shareable mockupnot published
Publish to web / apppaid only
Notes
Extra notesBecame the standard of what to expectHas the most personalityBest org of previous versions, but can get confusingReports "Missing Project Files"Like the tabs for the project

07 - TAKEAWAYS

Lessons to take onto the next project

This project taught me more about the importance of the design process than it did about AI tools.

01

Going into a builder without a design direction produced something — but reacting to what came out wasn't the same as designing with intention.

02

All AI builders are excellent at executing a clear brief and much weaker at filling in what wasn't specified.

03

The builders that produced the strongest outputs weren't necessarily the most technically capable — they made the best design decisions in the absence of explicit instructions.

04

That's a design judgment call, not an engineering one — and it's where the gap between a good builder and a great one actually lives.

Piqued your interest?

Return to Projects
trainON
next project