Vibe coding tools these days are a bit like JavaScript frameworks: there's a new one launching every week and everyone gets FOMO about it.
Don't fall for the shiny object syndrome. Instead of choosing based on hype, choose based on what makes sense for you.
In this guide, we'll compare the major players: Lovable, Bolt, v0, Tempo, Replit (browser-based), Cursor, Windsurf, Cline, GitHub Copilot, Roo Code, Augment Code (IDE-based), and Warp, Aider, OpenCode, Codex CLI, Claude Code, Gemini CLI (terminal-based).
Here are three critical questions to help you choose.
⊹ The Three Questions
1. Where do you prefer to work?
Not what features you need. Not what's most powerful. Where do you feel comfortable? Browser, code editor, or terminal?
2. Do you care which AI model you're using?
Some people can tell the difference between Claude and GPT-4 and want to choose. Others just want something that works. Both are valid. But the answer changes which tools make sense.
3. What are you actually building?
Not what you might build someday. What you're building right now. A prototype? A landing page? A production app with paying users? The complexity of your project determines which tools will actually work.
I have designed this interactive matrix to help you understand where each tools sit on those 3 dimensions.
More on each below 👇
💻 Question 1: Where Do You Want to Work?
It's about what makes you feel productive versus what makes you feel like you're fighting friction.
Some people see a terminal prompt and feel at home. Others see it and immediately want to close the window. Neither response is better. They're just different. And they point you toward completely different tools.
Personally, I'm not a fan of coding in a browser. I just love the ability to spin off localhost and see my creation directly on my machine on my local server. While I know how to use a terminal, I am not a die hard of the CLI. We've invented Graphical User Interfaces for a reason. I love my IDE. It's a place that feels like home.
There are 3 key categories of vibe coding tools.
🌐 Browser-Based
Tools like Lovable, Bolt, and v0? Open a tab. Start building. That's it. No installing Node.js. No spinning up localhost:3000. No "command not found" errors.
You see results instantly.
The tradeoff is obvious once you think about it: the tool picks your stack. Lovable defaults to React and Supabase for instance. They've optimized everything for these specific choices, which is exactly why it works so smoothly - at least for prototypes (more on that in a bit).
I've noticed something about who thrives with these tools. They're usually non-technical builders focused on ideas over infrastructure. Designers prototyping user flows. Anyone who needs something working in the next hour instead of the next day.
Two special cases worth knowing about:
-
v0 is particularly good at building first versions of UIs that look polished — it's designed to work beautifully with React, shadcn/ui, and Tailwind. While it can technically build full-stack applications, its real strength is creating great-looking UI components quickly.
-
Tempo is React-specific but bridges something interesting: it gives you visual drag-and-drop editing and advanced team collaboration features.
Worth noting: most browser-based tools now offer GitHub integration. This means you can start prototyping in the browser and later push your code to GitHub to continue development in an IDE-based or terminal-based tool. You're not locked in.
💻 IDE-Based
These tools (Cursor, Augment Code, GitHub Copilot, Windsurf, Cline, Roo Code, etc.) live inside your code editor. The AI assists while you handle local files, run servers, manage git.
Here's what changes: you get full stack flexibility. Next.js, Ruby on Rails, Python with FastAPI, Go, Rust, whatever you want. The tool adapts to your choices, not the other way around.
This is for developers who already have a workflow they like. You don't want a new environment. You want AI pair programming integrated into what already works for you.
I personally use Cursor because it integrates nicely with VS Code, which was my original IDE. Unlike tools like Roo Code or Cline that are just extensions, Cursor is an actual fork of VS Code. This makes a real difference to me. It feels more stable and fully integrated. It's very subjective though.
🤖 Terminal-Based
Claude Code, Aider, OpenCode, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, Warp. Everything happens through the command line.
Maximum control. Maximum flexibility. Maximum learning curve.
These tools are for developers who live in the terminal and want AI assistance without leaving their command-line workflow. You get full control over your environment, can script everything, and integrate deeply with existing development processes. The trade-off is a steeper learning curve, and overall a user interface that makes it a bit harder to context switch between the different parts of the code edited by your agent.
The most commonly used here seems to be Claude Code, especially since Anthropic models tend to be particularly good at writing quality code.
Some interesting options have emerged: OpenCode is fully open source and supports 75+ LLM providers through Models.dev. Codex CLI does something clever with multimodal input—text, screenshots, diagrams—plus flexible approval modes. Gemini CLI offers Google's latest models with deep integration into Google's AI ecosystem. Warp is trying to reimagine terminal-based development entirely: modern UX, code review interface, multi-model support spanning the whole software lifecycle. They call it an "Agentic Development Environment."
🎛️ Question 2: Do You Care Which AI Model You're Using?
Some tools lock you into specific AI models. Others let you choose and switch freely.
Model-Locked Tools
Lovable, Bolt, v0, Tempo, Claude Code, Gemini CLI. They give you one model, maybe a small set. You use what they've integrated. No swapping. No experimenting. Updates happen when the company decides to update.
When does this work? When you're just starting. One good model is actually plenty. You don't need to optimize between Claude and GPT-4 depending on the task. You just want something that works and less choices to make.
Model-Agnostic Tools
Cursor, Augment Code, Aider, OpenCode, Windsurf, Codex CLI, Warp. These let you choose: Claude Sonnet, GPT-4, whatever's newest. Switch models per task if you want. Try new models the same day they're released.
When does this matter? When you're deep enough to notice the differences. Claude structures code differently than GPT-4. You start wanting specific models for specific tasks. You want cutting-edge access immediately, not three weeks later when some tool decides to integrate it.
🏗️ Question 3: What Are You Actually Building?
I've noticed people often choose tools based on features, hype or "my neighbor and their dog use this so I use it too". Instead of asking: what am I actually trying to build?
There's a spectrum here. From simple prototypes only your team will see internally, all the way to complex production apps with real users and money on the line. Your tool needs to match where your project actually sits on this spectrum.
Prototypes & Demos
You're building UI/UX demos for product meetings. Mid-fidelity mockups to test flows with stakeholders.
Here's what matters: code quality is irrelevant. Nobody will ever use it daily. You need something that works well enough to communicate an idea. You couldn't care less about how well designed in the data model in the backend.
Lovable, Bolt or Replit are perfect for this. I've talked to UX/UI designers who now skip Figma initially and just build working prototypes in those tools. They can get aligned on both UI and UX in a way static screens never achieve. Then they go make the polished Figma mocks for their developers.
Landing Pages
Marketing sites. Product launches. Simple informational pages.
These are self-contained. Mostly frontend. Limited interaction. v0, Lovable, or Bolt all work well here. v0 is particularly good if you care about polished UI components. I naturally go to V0 when building a first version of a landing page.
Lead Magnets
Free tools to capture emails. Calculators, generators, databases, simple interactive apps or AI wrappers.
Those are more than just landing pages. They have a database and some simple backend that may interact with other APIs and maybe LLM services.
This is where it gets interesting. Bolt or Lovable work well for the first version: no payments, usually no authentication, simple data models. But as these grow more complex, I've heard teams adopt a hybrid approach: marketing folks iterate on UI/UX directly in Bolt or Lovable, while developers handle the more complex backend work (API integrations, data modeling, etc.) using IDE or terminal-based tools. They push to GitHub and work in parallel on the same project. It's surprisingly effective.
Internal Apps
Dashboards. Admin tools. Company-specific applications.
Here's where it gets interesting. You can start with browser tools. But I've watched this pattern repeatedly: as soon as the data model gets complex, as soon as you need real backend logic, the browser tools start fighting you.
At that point, move to IDE-based tools like Cursor / Windsurf or CLI-based tools like Claude Code or Codex. Don't try to force it. It’s like trying to build a skyscraper out of Jenga blocks. Looks clever until gravity brings you back to Earth.
Full-Stack Applications
Real apps. Authentication, user roles, payments, complex data models. Real users paying real money.
Use Cursor, Windsurf, Augment Code, or Aider. This is where simpler tools become actively dangerous. You need technical control. Proper architecture. Maintainable code. The ability to debug when things go wrong.
Browser tools will let you build something that looks like it works. But it won't scale. And you won't be able to fix it when it breaks.
The pattern: As complexity increases, you need more control. Browser tools excel at throwaway work and simple projects. Production applications with actual stakes demand IDE or terminal tools.
🌳 Decision Tree
Here is an interactive decision tree I've built to help you pick...
🚫 The Tool Hopping Trap
There is a disturbing trend on Youtube and X.com: people switching tools every other week. You'll see stupid thumbnails like "💀 Cursor is DEAD. Claude Code Just Changed EVERYTHING!" or "I Was WRONG About Cursor (Goodbye Claude Code 😢)".
Please let them scream in the void.
The reality is these tools copy each other relentlessly.
Here's what you lose when you switch constantly: deep tool knowledge. The kind that makes you dangerous.
When you stick with something for months, the shortcuts become automatic, you discover hidden features, you build repeatable workflows and all that knowledge compounds over time.
When you switch every week or month, you become an eternal beginner chasing the hype.
🧘♂️ The Bottom Line
Pick your tool based on those simple questions:
- Where do you feel at home?
- Do you need model flexibility?
- What are you trying to build?
Stick to it for a few months. Ignore the hype.
Now go build something.
📚 Related Articles
Now that you've chosen your weapon, below are two other articles you may find helpful:
Four Rules of Vibe Coding (Without the Chaos)
A Practical Guide to Vibe Coding with Cursor
Written with ❤️ by a human (still)