• A trio of journalists tried three big vibe coding apps to see how they stack up.
• We each attempted to build an app on Cursor, Lovable, and Base44.
• With the same prompt on each system, we wanted to see how far we could get.

We three writers have been handed a gift with seemingly infinite potential. A sparkling promise, from vibe coding startups, that we can build anything without understanding a word of code.

Gone are the days, these companies say, when coding novices needed to rely on their techie friends to troubleshoot mistakes.

Over a dozen firms have rolled out tools offering the ability to build apps in seconds. All you need is a good idea and the platforms' free coding credits.

With a growing wave of vibe-coding startups raising big money, questions are emerging: Are these tools meaningfully different? Is the market already crowded? And can this be a sustainable business?

We tried three of the most popular platforms — Cursor, Lovable, and Base44 — to find out what each platform really offers and where they fall short.

Our prompts

We started this experiment at different levels of proficiency.

Chong Ming had coded an app at a vibe-coding workshop. Cheryl, self-taught, had experimented with five vibe-coding platforms and made three web apps. Aditi was a true beginner.

We each set out to make an app. For Chong Ming, a writing companion in the shape of a cute creature. For Cheryl, a newsroom dashboard, a lite version of Asana to keep her team's work organized. And for Aditi, an app that acted like a newsroom photo coach, to deem whether a photo was good to publish.

First impressions

Chong Ming: When I asked Base44 to plan the app, it responded with a few questions to clarify my prompt, with cute emojis. The plan it generated wasn't as detailed as what I've seen from Cursor, but it was user-friendly.

Lovable's plan was even simpler, pared down to a few bullet points. It was just as easy to use as Base44. Within minutes, it generated a web app similar to Base44's.

Cursor's interface seemed built for serious builders looking to ship real products. Its planning questions were more advanced and thoughtful, asking if I wanted an MVP build plan, a clickable prototype, or a full product spec — the kind of distinctions a software engineer would make.

Cheryl: I've always been one for the rule of cool, and Cursor looked really cool, with its all-black dashboard. But there was some charm in logging onto Lovable, with its girlypop, pink-heavy interface, and Base44 offered some cheerful vibes on its tangerine-colored interface, too.

Base44 and Lovable felt more like signing into a website and conversing with a chatbot. With Cursor and its MacBook app, I felt like I was hacking into the mainframe, with all its complicated scrolling lines of code.

Aditi: Off the bat, Cursor looked intimidating, and the option to sync GitHub when logging in made me think it wasn't a platform for a non-technical user.

Meanwhile, Base44 and Lovable were friendly and reassuring, with their gentle prompts: "What will you build next?" and "Ready to build, Aditi?"

Learning curve

Chong Ming: Base44 and Lovable were easy to use. The app plans were written in plain language for everyday users, and the interface was beginner-friendly. It was clear where to click if I needed help or wanted to tweak something.

Cursor was a different story. There were things I had to decipher on my own, like "frontend built with Next.js, React, and TypeScript."

Cheryl: I have never felt more like a dinosaur than when I first tried using Cursor. It was embarrassing having to look up basic terms to know what I was dealing with.

On Base44 and Lovable, I consistently typed in plain English and made the app edits accordingly. I felt like a wizard, watching the app preview morph and shift into view.

Aditi: I'd never tried vibe coding, so I asked AI for help understanding AI. I asked ChatGPT to help me refine my initial prompt into something I could plonk into the vibe coding platforms.

With Lovable and Base44, the learning was intuitive, and it felt like I was talking to ChatGPT. With Cursor, I was completely lost and had no idea where to start.

Then it was time to build the apps

Chong Ming: Base44 built me a writing companion app with a cute egg. The layout felt bland, but it was a full-fledged, functional app created without using up all my credits.

Lovable's build was similar and didn't use all credits.

Both platforms could generate the app; the main variation was in aesthetics. I did appreciate that Base44 and Lovable let me edit the app directly in the interface.

The Cursor build process wasn't as hands-off. Unlike Base44 and Lovable, which ran start to finish, Cursor required me to approve commands and grant permissions to override folders on my computer. As it generated code, I could pause and review it, something that would likely appeal to developers who want control.

Cheryl: The best things in life are free, and vibe coding credits are one of them. On Base44 and Lovable, both platforms make it clear to users that they're cooking with limited credits, and that's fair — compute is costly. The mileage on each platform, however, was slightly different.

Lovable gave me good bones for the project up front and created something that was, aesthetically and functionally, closest to what I wanted. But it burned through more free credits than my Base44 project did, and some things still weren't working in the web app. I was stuck waiting for new credits to drop before I could make tweaks.

Base44 gave me something very close to a complete dashboard, but it lacked some key functionality — the option to delete tasks, or to drag and drop unscheduled tasks into the calendar frame. But that was ironed out within minutes with two additional message prompts.

Cursor's steeper learning curve and multi-step process made it far harder for me to work things out. After 10 minutes of Googling, I gave in and typed into the Cursor chat: "I'm confused. What do I do now? Give me a guide."

I was told to go to Supabase and make some adjustments to the settings, then try to ship it via a local server. At that point, I was coming up on half an hour of getting frustrated with the process.

Aditi: The development process was smooth sailing with Lovable and Base44. With one initial prompt and two additional tweaks, both platforms gave me usable apps that I thought would be handy newsroom tools.

I first tried Base44 and felt childlike wonder when it produced a clean, minimalist interface that let me drag a photo in and judge its quality.

After the initial merriment wore off, I started testing the features. One thing I had not realized was how specific my prompts needed to be, expecting it to anticipate my needs. For example, both platforms initially did not allow me to crop the image or adjust the framing, and instead automatically chose the subject for me. An easy second prompt brought the apps closer to my initial vision — although I quickly learned how to ration my prompts lest I run out of my daily free credits.

Lovable's interface had a neat little photo-scanning animation that I thought added visual interest to the otherwise simple interface.

Now for Cursor. I had to download the app on the MacBook, while the others could run in the browser. When I finally downloaded it and fed it my prompt, it ran lines of obscure code, asked for permissions to things I didn't understand, and made me lose motivation to build anything.

I eventually gave up on trying to make it work, but the app kept prodding me with pop-ups for permissions all day until I force-quit it.

I'll stick to my beginner-friendly platforms until further notice.

How the platforms stack

Chong Ming: Lovable and Base44 delivered working apps and refinements fast, but the quality didn't match Cursor. Cursor broke down what it added and made changes in detail, even if some of the jargon flew over my head.

When I refined the app, Cursor didn't just tweak surface-level things. It suggested enhancements such as adding extra animation frames or making the pet move faster. When I said I didn't want a simple egg, it flagged that a drawn mascot or pixel pet would require new assets — a level of clarity the others didn't offer.

By comparison, Lovable and Base44 suggested things like adding entrance animations, which felt more gimmicky than meaningful.

If I were building something serious, I'd go with Cursor, even if it takes more time and effort to get up to speed.

Cheryl: On both Lovable and Base44, I managed to build workable newsroom calendars and get them from first prompt to publishing within 10 minutes. Base44 gave me a complete, fully functional project I could immediately use and share with my team — and within the free credit range, too. The next day, I used my new set of credits on Lovable to make final tweaks, resulting in a publishable dashboard with all the functions I wanted.

On Cursor, however, I just couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong and why the code wasn't running as I intended. I never got my dashboard off the ground there. Cursor: It's not you, it's me.

If you have a nontechnical background, a clear vision for the app you want to build, but limited time to pick up a little more coding, a one-stop shop like Lovable and Base44 would be more your speed. If you do have more coding know-how, Cursor will give you access and oversight over the coding process within its free credit limit.

Aditi: As a colors-obsessed, minimalism-loving, non-technical person who just wants to build a simple app, here's my leaderboard: Lovable, Base44, Cursor.

The market's flooded with options, so take your pick while companies are being generous with credits

The apps we tried are just a sampling of the vibe coding offerings out there. Other companies, like Emergent and Replit, also offer one-stop-shop platforms that take ideas from conception to shipping fast.

The barrier to entry is low, particularly with free credits on entry-level plans.

So if there was ever a time to try vibe-coding, it's now.

• Target used to have one of retail's top mobile apps, but competitors are catching up.
• Over the past year, the company has quietly rolled out several AI-powered shopper-friendly features.
• I tried them out and found three ways the refreshed app makes shopping easier.

Target's mobile app has long been one of the company's not-so-secret weapons.

The retailer was an early mover among its brick-and-mortar peers to seriously invest in its digital business. The app drove Target's early success in curbside pickup and continues to serve as a hub for its membership programs.

I started shopping at Target much more often when my first daughter was born during the pandemic, and I often wished more retailers had apps as useful as the one with the Bullseye logo. The store map was a particular timesaver for me during a very busy time in my family's life.

In recent years, the competition has stepped up to narrow Target's lead, or in some cases, surpass it.

From scan-and-go self-checkout in the Walmart and Sam's Club apps, to Lowe's and Home Depot helping shoppers find and learn more about products in their stores, mobile apps have evolved into much more than a pocket-sized version of the company's website.

Not every store's app needs the same features, but it was starting to look like Target was losing its advantage.

Roughly one-fifth of Target's merchandise sales last year were made via web or app, or more than $21 billion. Beyond the e-commerce factor, good apps matter because shoppers are still very much going into stores, only now they're more likely to have a phone in hand while they fill their carts.

"About a third of our guests are using their app in the store," Target's chief revenue and digital officer, Sarah Travis, said at a meeting with investors and media at the company's Minneapolis headquarters earlier this month, which I attended.

Travis showed how Target has responded to this shift with several new, user-friendly features intended to make shopping easier. I was surprised to see these upgrades had been rolled out so quietly.

Unlike Target's flashy partnerships with Google or OpenAI, these new features involve more subtle integrations of artificial intelligence to supercharge common tasks.

"Target's unique opportunity is to think holistically about guest experience," Travis said, referring to this blended digital and physical approach to shopping. "The experience that you get today is vastly different than the experience that you would have gotten six months ago."

Once I got home, I decided to try them for myself. The features aren't all exclusive to Target, but three struck me as much-needed additions to the app experience — especially if Target wants to get shoppers to come back.

A handwritten list scanner

Like physical stores, the paper (or whiteboard) grocery list is still very much a reality for many US households.

I can't speak for everyone, but my family rarely makes grocery lists with detailed branding or package info — we list items in general terms like "milk" rather than "Fairlife 2% Organic Lactose Free Milk — 52 fl oz."

Now, in the My Target tab in the app, there's an option to "scan a paper list," which uses the phone's camera to capture handwritten text.

Once the app processes the image, it pulls up to 20 relevant product listings per list item to either add to an in-app basket or shopping list, turning your handwritten notes into an order that you or someone else can fulfill with precision.

It worked pretty well when I tried it, except when the app assumed I was looking for a women's or children's shirt and didn't show any men's options. My paper list just said "T-shirt," so I could have been more specific.

The buy it again tab

Another more prominent tool enhances a preexisting app feature and gives it prominent placement as a tab on the main screen.

Target's app has long made it easy to find past orders and add selected items to your cart. That's still an option, but now the app highlights frequently purchased items, items with active discounts, and stuff you bought a while ago that might be running low.

The tailored experience means that no two shoppers have the same experience, Travis said, adding that the feature "has essentially become a speed run for weekly essentials."

In a few taps, you can be restocked and ready to go.

A more helpful map

In my experience, one of the Target app's most useful features — by far — is its mapping tool that shows where to find a product in a sprawling store. This is especially helpful when traveling or when I have to go to a location across town.

When Home Depot rolled out its own version, called Store Mode, I found myself wishing Target had something to match. Now it does, thanks to the same geolocation startup, which says it also provides the service for Dick's Sporting Goods.

With the recent upgrade (and location sharing turned on), the app now prompts in-store customers to enter "Store mode," which enables a batch of map-based features, including where to find current deals and promotions.

In the "List" tab, rather than having to hunt for items one-by-one, everything on your in-app list (that you scanned earlier) shows up as a pin on the store map, helping plan a path to get what you came in for without bouncing all over the place.

It's a win for Target as well. "When guests use store mode, their baskets grow by more than 7%," Travis said.

These upgrades show that Target's app is still in the game with one of the most useful shopping apps around, and I can see it saving time and money on my next Target run.

• Pay for gig work varies significantly across apps, a new Gridwise report found.
• The report estimated hourly pay rates for ride-hailing, delivery, and other types of gig work.
• Taskrabbit, Walmart's Spark, and Uber ranked among the highest-paying apps, Gridwise found.

The gig economy has grown to include apps from Uber to Instacart. They don't all pay the same.

Average hourly pay on the apps varied in 2025, according to data analytics company Gridwise, which analyzed about 1 billion tasks across ride-hailing, delivery, and other gig work apps.

Workers for Taskrabbit, a platform where users hire independent contractors for yard work, home repair, and other physical tasks, earned the highest hourly pay rate at $38.

Spark, Walmart's delivery service, took second place at $23 an hour, with Uber just behind at $22.

DoorDash's hourly pay was $11, the lowest of the apps Gridwise analyzed.

Some companies say their workers earn higher hourly rates than Gridwise's estimates suggest. A Taskrabbit spokesperson said that its gig workers earn $49 an hour on average, although earnings vary by location. Uber said last year that the company's drivers earn $32 per hour while actively working on the app.

Gridwise compiled the estimates for its annual gig mobility report, released last week. The hourly pay data includes base pay, bonuses, and tips that workers received.

The data show that the best-known gig services don't always offer the best pay for workers, Ryan Green, CEO of Gridwise, told Business Insider.

Walmart launched its Spark delivery service as a test in 2018, years after competitors such as DoorDash and Uber Eats. Spark drivers pick up or shop orders at Walmart stores, helping the retailer grow its delivery business quickly.

"They just snuck up on the market and have rapidly grown into this space," he said.

Ride-hailing fares have risen faster than driver pay

Some gig workers have told Business Insider that it's harder to make money on apps like Uber and DoorDash than it was several years ago, due to higher competition and lower pay rates.

Most gig workers are responsible for their own costs, such as car maintenance. As a result, some gig workers have decided to accept only the trips that pay them the most for their time.

The price of gas, which has shot up in the past two weeks after the US started a war with Iran, is the latest cost pressure on ride-hailing drivers.

Uber and Lyft increased prices last year — and passed on a fraction of that hike to the drivers who make their businesses possible.

From December 2024 to December 2025, average customer ride prices on Uber and Lyft rose 9.6%, according to Gridwise. Over the same period, driver gross pay per trip increased 3.6%, and gross pay per hour rose 4.1%.

"We saw a modest increase on the driver side, and a much more substantial increase on the pricing side," Green said.

Last year, Gridwise found that weekly pay on most ride-hailing and delivery apps fell in 2024.

Delivery workers for services like DoorDash also saw an increase in per-hour pay last year — 3.2% — though their working hours on the platform rose about 17%, according to Gridwise.

Were you a gig worker in 2025? Business Insider is gathering information on gig worker earnings for a coming story.

You can contact Alex Bitter at abitter@businessinsider.com or via encrypted messaging app Signal at 808-854-4501.

• Young tech startup founders are having a moment in the AI era.
• From teenagers to 20-somethings, these founders are raising millions.
• Take a look at the pitch decks some of these founders shared with Business Insider.

Tech is no stranger to young founders.

Steve Jobs was 21 when he cofounded Apple in 1976. Mark Zuckerberg was 19 when Facebook launched. Whitney Wolfe Herd was 25 when she unveiled Bumble.

Many of today's startup founders are still young and scrappy. And in the age of AI, they're even more empowered to barrel ahead.

Some are following the footsteps of tech titans before them and dropping out of college. Others are opting out of the undergraduate experience altogether, with a few ditching high school to pursue careers in tech.

Arlan Rakhmetzhanov, founder of AI coding startup Nozomio, told Business Insider that he dropped out of high school in Kazakhstan after getting accepted into the competitive startup accelerator program, Y Combinator (YC). At the age of 18, he raised $6.2 million for Nozomio.

Rakhmetzhanov isn't the only teenager finding success in AI. There's also Toby Brown, a UK teen who raised $1 million for his AI project. There's also Zach Yadegari, the teenage cofounder of Cal AI, a nutrition app.

College-aged founders are also building companies and raising capital, such as the Yale students behind Series AI, a new social networking startup.

The median age for YC participants is now 24 years old, compared to 30 in 2022, YC's Pete Koomen told The New York Times in August.

Business Insider has interviewed the founders of 12 startups who are 25 years old or younger and have raised millions in funding since 2024 about the pitch decks they used to impress investors.

Read 12 pitch decks founders who are 25 years old or younger used to raise millions:

Note: Founders were 25 or younger when Business Insider published the following articles.

Series A

• Posh, an events platform, raised a $22 million Series A when its founders were 23. Read the 12-page pitch deck it used.
• Clyx, a startup trying to connect people via in-person events, raised a $14 million Series A when its founder was 25. Read 22 pages of its deck.

Seed

• Ditto, an AI dating startup founded by UC Berkeley dropouts, raised $9.2 million when the founders were 23 and 24. Read its 12-page pitch deck.
• Lyra, an AI video call startup, raised a $6 million seed out of YC when its founder was 23. Read the 8-slide pitch deck it used.
• Nexad, an AI adtech startup, raised a $6 million seed after wrapping up A16z's Speedrun accelerator. Nexad's CEO was 25. Read the 10-page pitch deck.
• Orange Slice, a YC-backed sales tech platform, raised $5.3 million when its founders were 23. Read the 7-page pitch deck.
• Golpo, a generative AI video startup, raised a $4.1 million seed out of YC when its founders — who are also brothers — were 19 and 20. Read its 7-page pitch deck.
• Bluejay, an AI agent startup, raised a $4 million seed coming out of YC when its founders were 23. Read its 9-page pitch deck.
• Novoflow, an agentic AI startup building tools for medical clinics, raised $3.1 million when its founders were 18 and 19. Read its pitch deck.
• CodeFour, an AI police tech startup, was founded by two 19-year-old MIT dropouts and raised $2.7 million coming out of YC. Read the pitch deck.
• Cerca, a dating app that connects people with mutual friends, raised a $1.6 million seed when its CEO was 23. Read the 10-slide deck.

Pre-seed

• Series, an AI social networking startup, raised a $3.1 million pre-seed when its founders were 21.

This story has been updated with additional examples.