Skip navigation EPAM
Dark Mode
Light Mode

Best Vibe Coding Tools in 2026: v0, Lovable, Bolt, Replit, and Figma Make Tested on Real Designs

What if you could describe an application in plain English and see working code appear in seconds? This idea sits at the core of vibe coding, a term introduced by Andrej Karpathy in early 2025. 

Vibe coding refers to AI-assisted programming where intent is expressed through natural language prompts instead of code. Teams use it to turn designs into working demos quickly. You can test user flows, validate layouts, and evaluate ideas without spending weeks on production code. The concept caught on fast and was later named Collins Dictionary’s Word of the Year, reinforcing its role in rapid prototyping.

This article puts that promise under the microscope. We ran a structured experiment across five web-based vibe coding tools: v0, Lovable, Bolt, Replit, and Figma Make. Each tool was asked to translate real Figma designs into working code. The sections that follow break down how each tool actually performed.

The experiment design

Most vibe coding tools generate interfaces that roughly match your prompt. They assemble familiar components from learned patterns. The result looks close, but rarely exact. That is usually enough for early exploration.

This experiment sets a higher bar. We tested how accurately each tool can reproduce a specific Figma design with defined functional requirements. The goal was not usability, but design and behavior fidelity. We evaluated five browser-based tools with different Figma-to-code approaches:

ToolFigma import method
v0.appScreenshot-based
LovableScreenshot-based or via Builder.io integration (which requires Figma subscription)
BoltFigma link
ReplitFigma link
Figma MakeNative (built into Figma)

Key distinctions: Import method + framework defaults

Understanding how each tool imports Figma designs is crucial because it directly impacts output quality:

  • Direct Figma import: tools access your actual Figma design metadata, preserving layer information, styles, and assets. Results closely match the original design.
  • Screenshot-based import: tools interpret a visual representation of your design. Results may not be 1:1 with the Figma mockup since they're essentially "reading" an image.
  • Framework defaults: most tools default to React + Tailwind CSS. If you need Angular, Vue, or other frameworks, support varies significantly between platforms. Usually results do not closely match the design with a non-default framework.

Experiment setup

Source designs: LLM Mockups Figma File — UI designs with varying complexity levels

Backend API: A deployed mock backend at https://mock-be-news-production.up.railway.app/ providing realistic data endpoints

What the experiment tested

Scenario A: News List (requirements + API)

A list/grid layout displaying multiple news items with pagination, tabs ("Main" and "Your Posts"), search filtering, and markdown content rendering. This tests list rendering, API integration, and filtering logic.

Prompt highlights: Request data from REST API, implement tabs based on user ID, format markdown content, enable search filtering.

Prompt highlight

Based on figma-design implement page with 2 tabs,
main and "your posts", by requesting data
based on user id using this API:

1) GET https://mock-be-news-production.up.railway.app/api/users/current
- call to get current user info

2) GET https://mock-be-news-production.up.railway.app/api/news

Text of news post should be formatted as markdown text
(i.e. bold, link, list).

Posts can be filtered by "search".

Below description of API:

### Endpoint
GET mock-be-news-production.up.railway.app/api/users/current

### Description
Get information about the current authenticated user.

### Response (200)

{
"data": {
"key": "u001",
"name": "Ivan Ivanov",
"email": "[email protected]"
},
"success": true
}

### Endpoint
GET mock-be-news-production.up.railway.app/api/news

### Request Examples

GET /api/news
GET /api/news?search=gpt
GET /api/news?userId=u001

### Response (200)

{
"data": {
"news": [...],
"pagination": {...}
},
"success": true
}

Scenario B: Tree map (requirements + API) 

A complex D3.js tree map visualization with category filtering and detail panel. This tests third-party library integration, data visualization, and interactive UI components.

Prompt highlights: D3.js treemap, dynamic category colors, weight-based element sizing, tooltips for small elements, side panel for tool details.

Prompt highlight

Create tree map chart with category filter
and showing detail information about tool.

For Tree Map use D3.js lib to match provided mockup design.

Using this API description to get data for tree map chart:

### Endpoint
GET mock-be-news-production.up.railway.app/api/tree

### Description
Get tree data containing 50+ tools info with weight metric,
associated projects, case studies, news, and user metrics.

This endpoint returns an array of tools with their complete information
including adoption metrics and related content.

Need to calculate all possible categories dynamically
for tree map visualization based on API response.

Each category should have its own color.

All elements on Tree Map should be displayed in the same area,
fully visible on the screen.

The square (size) of each element should correspond to
element's weight.

If element is too small to display its caption, caption should not
be displayed in the element itself, but should appear in tooltip.

Weight is a metric used to calculate element size.
The higher the weight value, the larger the element size on the tree map.

Projects, case studies, and news
are arrays of related items. Amount of items should be shown on tree map card.

SidePanel shows info about tool.
If no one tool is selected, side panel should show info about all tools.

### Request Parameters
No parameters required.

### Response Type
Successful Response Example (200):

{
"data": [
{
"key": "tool-0",
"tool": "Github Copilot",
"description": "An AI-powered code completion tool that helps developers write code faster and with fewer errors.",
"categories": [
"Assistant"
],
"weight": 105.08983184855421,
"userMetrics": {
"dailyActiveUsers": 0,
"monthlyActiveUsers": 27511,
"onboarded": 55000
},
"projects": [
{
"projectCode": "PRJ-LWQQJ",
"updatedAt": "2025-09-04",
"highlight": "Short text of project",
"id": 0
}
],
"caseStudies": [
{
"title": "Some title of case study 0",
"updatedAt": "2025-08-29T07:45:39+00:00",
"highlight": "Short text of case study",
"id": 0
}
],
"news": [
{
"key": "5582",
"id": "5582",
"title": "Some title of news 5582",
"updatedAt": "2025-07-10T20:04:12.304Z",
"highlight": "Short text of news"
}
]
}
],
"success": true
}

What this experiment did NOT test

  • Backend code generation quality
  • Multi-page application workflows
  • Team collaboration features
  • Long-term project maintainability
  • Performance optimization of generated code
  • Accessibility compliance
  • Deployment/hosting features
Results: Performance of vibe coding tools in real Figma scenarios 

Each scenario produced a working page with almost all functional requirements met. Results reflect running the initial prompt with up to ten refinement iterations.

The tool by tool performance includes: 

1. v0

Vercel's AI coding tool designed for rapid prototyping with one-click deployment.

Figma Import: Screenshot-based. Figma links get converted to screenshots, so you lose some design metadata.

In v0 we used a screenshot to present design to the tool along with the initial prompt describing functional requirements and API integration. So with screenshot import you could immediately provide additional context to the tool so it has a better understanding of what needs to be done.

The design fidelity scores are:

  • News list: 62%
  • Tree map: 82%

News list: Figma Design vs v0

The final output clearly diverged from the original design. Elements such as search, tab structure, and the placement of like, dislike, and share buttons did not match the mockup. The generated solution actually does what was asked, but not exactly as specified in the design.

From a functionality standpoint, most features worked after the first prompt, with the exception of markdown rendering and tab state management. However, the code quality was unrefined — overly long Tailwind class strings, hardcoded values, and the entire application confined to a single file.

It ultimately took 4 iterations to achieve a result that was acceptable.

Tree map: Figma Design vs v0

Several UI issues persisted even after multiple iterations:

  • The side panel failed to close when clicking the cross icon
  • Tabs inside the panel were improperly styled, and there was no scroll support for long item lists
  • Sidebar tabs did not align with the intended design specifications.

From a code perspective, the implementation introduced performance inefficiencies when rendering large lists, lacked handling for window resize events, logged errors only to the console, and contained a lot of unexplained magic numbers throughout the codebase.

Strengths of v0

  • Screenshot-based import allows you to attach visual context and functional requirements in a single prompt, giving the model immediate layout understanding from the start
  • Fast path to working UI logic. API integration and core behaviors (tabs, filters, pagination) were implemented quickly with minimal prompting.
  • Low friction onboarding; no mandatory Figma metadata setup and a screenshot is enough to begin.

Limitations of v0

  • Lack of access to real design metadata. Leads to layout reinterpretation and generic component substitution.
  • Low structural fidelity
  • Missed functional details (markdown rendering, tab state management) on first pass, requiring multiple correction iterations

2. Lovable

In Lovable, we provided the tool with a screenshot of the design along with the initial prompt outlining the functional requirements and API integration details. By importing the screenshot, we gave the model immediate visual context, allowing it to better understand layout expectations, styling nuances, and overall structure. This additional reference helped align the generated output more closely with the intended design from the start.

Figma Import: Screenshot-based by default. Builder.io integration is available but requires a Figma subscription. 

The design fidelity scores are:

  • News list: 65%
  • Tree map: 85%

News list: Figma Design vs Lovable

Despite importing the screenshot for visual context, there was still a clear gap between the intended design and the final implementation. The layout and styling did not fully align with the mockup. Markdown rendering was also missing in the initial output and had to be corrected through a follow-up prompt.

From a code quality perspective, several issues stood out: overly long and hard-to-read Tailwind class strings, inconsistent naming conventions, unused generated code, scattered magic numbers, and inefficient data loading logic. The tool defaulted to making two API requests regardless of context, instead of adapting to actual usage needs.

Overall, it took 3 iterations to reach an acceptable result.

Tree map: Figma Design vs Lovable

The import once again resulted in a visible gap between the intended design and the final implementation. Several visual inconsistencies persisted: category colors were incorrect, tooltip positioning was misaligned, and the date format did not match the design specifications.

The code quality reflected similar shortcomings. The output included unused code, inconsistent naming conventions, overly long Tailwind class strings, magic numbers, hardcoded values, and duplicated logic. Additionally, a bug in the initial tree map render was traced back to an incorrect width calculation.

It ultimately took 3 iterations to reach an acceptable result.


Strengths of Lovable

  • Screenshot + prompt combination works well for behavioral alignment.
  • Relatively fast convergence. Required fewer refinement iterations than some competitors in both scenarios.
  • Clear credit visibility model. Usage feedback is transparent.

Limitations of Lovable

  • Screenshot-first by default. Same structural limitations as other non-metadata tools.
  • Builder.io dependency for true Figma import adds subscription and workflow complexity.
  • Magic numbers, duplicated fetch logic, inconsistent naming, and unused blocks causes code hygiene issues.
  • No direct repository download from the interface

3. Bolt

Bolt is an AI-powered full-stack app builder that supports multiple frameworks. Its workflow begins with a Figma import step.

At this stage, there’s no opportunity to provide prompts or make adjustments, the tool simply converts the Figma design into a React + Tailwind project. Once the import is complete, you can introduce functional requirements and API integration prompts to make the generated interface interactive and dynamic.

Figma import: You paste a Figma link directly into Bolt. The tool reads the design metadata, which improves structural and styling accuracy compared to purely screenshot-based inputs.

The design fidelity scores are:

  • News list: 86%
  • Tree map: 95%

News list: Figma Design vs Bolt

After the design import, Bolt ran into two consecutive issues: an initial build error, followed by a compilation error after attempting to fix the first. The tab-overlap problem also remained unresolved despite two separate attempts.

Several styling mismatches persisted throughout:

  • The like/dislike and share buttons didn’t match the design, header alignment was off, post text wasn’t truncated, and post images were missing, which took two different prompts to address.
  • Fixing one problem also introduced regressions, such as the “Read more” link disappearing. In one case, the tool claimed it had added the image, but it still didn’t render.
  • The first tag was incorrectly shown as selected, and although the header background asset was downloaded from Figma, it wasn’t actually used in the UI.

It ultimately took 8 iterations to reach an acceptable result. Key takeaway is to fix issues one by one, even when they appear minor or closely related, to avoid cascading regressions.

Tree map: Figma Design vs Bolt

Category state and color handling were incorrect, and text inside tree map nodes was only partially visible. After fixing the category logic, a new compile error surfaced. At one point, the close icon unexpectedly changed from a cross to a bone icon for no clear reason. 

Search functionality did not work initially but was corrected with an additional prompt. Rendering performance for long lists was also inefficient.

In total, it took 10 iterations to achieve a reasonably stable result.

Strengths of Bolt

  • Direct Figma metadata ingestion with higher structural fidelity than screenshot-based tools.
  • Strong layout reconstruction. Component hierarchy, spacing, and alignment were closer to original mockups.
  • Framework flexibility beyond React. Supports Angular and Vue, which is rare in this category.
  • Separation of import and behavior refinement. Clear design-first → logic-second workflow.
  • Credit usage is visible and additional credits can be purchased.
  • Local deployment via Bolt.dev is available for teams who need to run projects inside their own infrastructure.

Limitations of Bolt

  • No prompting during initial Figma import. Design conversion happens without contextual behavioral instructions.
  • Import-phase locked to React + Tailwind. Framework flexibility applies after generation, not during Figma conversion.
  • Only one Figma frame can be imported at a time.
  • Rollback inconsistencies as some refinements created unexpected UI shifts.

4. Replit

Replit is a cloud-based development environment with built-in AI features and support for multiple programming languages.

Figma import: Paste a Figma link directly, and the tool reads the design metadata to generate a React + Tailwind project. At this stage, you can’t provide prompts or adjust the output — it strictly converts the design into code.

Once the import is complete, you can add prompts describing functional requirements and API integrations to make the generated interface interactive and production-ready.

The design fidelity scores are:

  • News list: 95%
  • Tree map: 91%

News list: Figma Design vs Replit

The imported design had minor visual inconsistencies, particularly in tag styling and title alignment. However, the API schema integration and functional requirements worked as expected.

On the code side, several quality issues emerged: inconsistent naming conventions, numerous hardcoded values, overly long and difficult-to-maintain Tailwind class strings, and unused generated code. An asynchronous logic bug also appeared — even when the default tab was set to “Your Posts,” the application still loaded all posts.

It took 4 prompts to arrive at an acceptable result.

Tree map: Figma Design vs Replit

After the design import and API integration, several functional and visual gaps remained: 

  • Categories required multi-select support, but this wasn’t implemented initially. 
  • Category colors did not align with those used in the tree map, the sidebar was missing a close icon, tree map node labels were not visible, search functionality was broken.
  • “Projects,” “News,” and “Case Studies” tabs were missing. Most of these issues were addressed through follow-up prompts.

On the code side, the same patterns seen in the News List implementation reappeared: inconsistent naming conventions, hardcoded values, excessively long Tailwind class strings, and unused generated code. Rendering performance was also inefficient when handling large data sets.

Strengths of Replit

  • High Figma fidelity via direct metadata access.
  • Strong initial functional correctness. API integration and tab logic largely worked on the first attempt.
  • Multi-language cloud environment. Beyond frontend generation, supports backend and scripting experimentation.
  • Multiple Figma frames can be imported across a session.
  • Full cloud IDE context, suitable for extending prototypes into runnable environments.

Limitations of Replit

  • No behavioral prompting during the import phase.
  • Heavy token usage during refinement cycles.
  • Code structure fragility with hardcoded values, async logic bugs, and large Tailwind blocks.
  • Async logic bugs appeared (e.g., default tab loading incorrect data), requiring additional correction prompts.

5. Figma Make: Best for Figma-native design teams

Figma Make brings AI code generation directly into Figma.

Figma import: Native. It runs inside Figma itself, with full access to the underlying design data rather than relying on screenshots or external links.

With Figma Make, you can select a specific design frame and provide a prompt describing the functional requirements at the same time. This allows the tool to receive both the visual layout and the intended behavior in a single step, improving alignment between design and implementation from the outset.

The design fidelity scores are:

  • News list: 97%
  • Tree map: 88%

News list: Figma Design vs Figma Make

The initial import closely matched the original design, and all assets were downloaded correctly. However, API integration was not implemented in the first pass and required a follow-up prompt.

Issues that we encountered:

  • Markdown rendering was missing, tab positioning was incorrect, and there were noticeable layout alignment gaps.
  • On the code side, search triggered an API request on every keystroke, data loading relied on duplicated fetch calls, and HTML was rendered without sanitization.
  • The codebase also included unused blocks and overly long, hard-to-read Tailwind class strings.

It took 8 iterations to arrive at a fully working result.

Tree map: Figma Design vs Figma Make

Tooltip positioning was incorrect, the layout failed to use the full available width, search functionality didn’t work, and categories lacked an active state. Attempts to fix some of these problems introduced new ones, including overlapping elements in other parts of the UI. Although data for projects, news, and case studies was successfully fetched, it was never rendered.

The codebase showed familiar quality concerns: unused code, a potential memory leak, hardcoded values, magic numbers, and duplicated logic.

It ultimately took 9 iterations to reach an acceptable result.

Strengths of Figma Make

  • Highest structural fidelity on design-first screens.
  • Prompt + design selection in one step. Behavioral context and layout are aligned from the start.
  • Zero context switching for designers: Everything happens inside Figma.
  • Design Mode editing lets users make visual adjustments directly alongside generated code.
  • Highest news list fidelity of all tools tested (97%), with all image assets downloaded correctly on the first pass.

Limitations of Figma Make

  • Code quality issues were comparable to other tools: unused code, hardcoded values, magic numbers, duplicated fetch calls, and unsanitized HTML rendering.
  • High iteration count (8–9 prompts) needed to resolve functional gaps despite strong initial visual fidelity.
  • No token visibility, usage is bundled into the Figma subscription with no cost signal during generation.
  • Refinement instability in complex logic scenarios (e.g., D3 rendering, category state handling).

End-to-end comparison: Where vibe coding tools actually differ

By now, it’s clear that vibe coding tools succeed or fail not on capability, but on reliability. This section consolidates the key differences across design fidelity, Figma ingestion, framework flexibility, and iteration costs, offering an end-to-end comparison of where each tool excels—and where it starts to break down.

Comparing design fidelity

Design fidelity was scored using a checklist-based evaluation derived directly from the original Figma mockups. For each scenario, we broke the design into layout structure, spacing, typography, component presence, interaction states, data binding, and visual hierarchy.

Each metric was assessed as a binary pass/fail (“Yes” or “No”) based on whether the generated UI matched the Figma design and functional intent. The fidelity percentage represents the share of metrics correctly implemented out of the total evaluated for that screen. The final score reflects the average fidelity across both test scenarios:

Tool News List fidelity Tree Map fidelity Average
v0 62% 82% 72%
Lovable 65% 85% 75%
Bolt 86% 91% 88.5%
Replit 95% 91% 93%
Figma Make 97% 88% 92.5%

 

Key pattern: Direct Figma metadata access (Figma Make, Replit, Bolt) is the "cheat code" for fidelity. Screenshot-based tools (v0, Lovable) often produce "generic" versions of your design because they are essentially "reading" an image.

Comparing Figma workflow and import model

How a tool ingests Figma is the single biggest predictor of output quality and iteration stability:

Featurev0LovableBoltReplitFigma Make
Direct Figma import
Importing images from Figma
Multiple Figma imports by link
Custom prompt on import

Comparing framework and UI flexibility

Vibe coding defaults to React + Tailwind; support for other ecosystems varies significantly. Results were rated on a scale of 0-3.

Featurev0LovableBoltReplitFigma Make
React support33333
Angular support00330
Vue support10320
UI/CSS framework flexibility21321

Comparing usage and cost signals

Efficiency is measured by how many "tokens" or credits are consumed to reach a functional state. Results were rated on a scale of -3 to 3.

Featurev0LovableBoltReplitFigma Make
Free daily credits33000
Token/credit visibility33333
Token consumption-1-2-2-3?
Buy extra tokens33330

 

*Figma Make has no token visibility—the service is included in a "Full Seat" Figma subscription.

The 80/20 rule: All tools achieved the initial layout (80%) with ease. However, the final 20%: fixing D3.js tooltips or specific API error handling often required multiple iterations that degraded the code quality.

Why production teams should be cautious with vibe coding tools

Design import limitations

  • Screenshot-based imports produce noticeably lower fidelity than direct Figma link imports
  • Image assets from Figma are rarely imported correctly - most tools require manual re-uploading
  • Non-responsive designs with fixed widths are common defaults

Tool quality concerns

  • Token consumption visibility varies significantly - some tools hide usage details
  • The tools have intermittent bugs, some of which are severe. For example, we observed cases where context was lost, causing the Figma design to be ignored during refinement iterations.
  • Error-fixing loops can consume tokens rapidly without guaranteed resolution
  • Framework conversions (e.g., React to Angular) frequently fail or enter error-fixing loops

Security risks

  • According to Veracode’s 2025 GenAI Code Security Report, 45% of AI-generated code contains at least one OWASP Top 10 vulnerability. Security outcomes are similar across models and providers
  • Prompting or model choice does not meaningfully reduce security risk
  • Vibe-coded output should not be deployed without a full security review

Code quality limitations

  • Inconsistent naming, formatting, and mixed coding styles are common
  • Functions tend to be oversized with tangled control flow
  • Hardcoded values and magic numbers appear frequently
  • Edge cases are handled with one-off patches rather than reusable logic
  • Error handling is inconsistent, with silent failures or abrupt crashes
  • Logging lacks structure and consistency
  • Redundant network calls and unnecessary re-renders are common
  • Component trees are often heavier than needed
  • Code becomes fragile as requirements grow more complex
  • Each refinement iteration reduces code quality through duplication and tight coupling

Fast but not forever: Choosing your vibe coding tool

Think of vibe coding as the interactive sketch pad of software development. For validating an isolated design, you get a working, clickable prototype in hours rather than weeks. But an interactive sketch is still a sketch. For production systems in regulated industries, where security, maintainability, and performance are non-negotiable, these tools are not ready to carry the weight.

The choice of tool comes down to where you sit and what you need:

  • If you are a designer already working inside Figma, Figma Make is the natural choice — the workflow is native, the fidelity is the highest of any tool tested, and there is no context-switching.
  • If you are a developer dealing with more complex requirements or need framework flexibility beyond React, Replit and Bolt are the stronger options: both deliver high design accuracy via direct Figma import, and both handle Angular and Vue where other tools fall short.
  • If speed and cost are the priority and you just need something working fast, v0 gets you there with the lowest overhead and one-click Vercel deployment.

These tools are evolving rapidly, and what is true today may shift within months. Treat this comparison as a starting point, not a final verdict, and always validate with a quick test on your own design before committing to a workflow.