Kubbler vs Lovable: who writes your foundations.
Both turn a description into an application. Lovable asks the model to write the whole project; Kubbler keeps a foundation written by engineers underneath the layer the AI composes. Here is what that changes, and what Lovable does better.
- capabilities written by engineers, never generated
- 22capabilities written by engineers, never generated
- credits spent on the size of your project
- 0credits spent on the size of your project
- monthly subscription, hosting included
- 1monthly subscription, hosting included
Which of the two, for you.
Lovable
You want the widest possible field and you know how to run a backend. Lovable generates the whole project, syncs both ways with your Git repository, and lets you host it wherever you like. If your team already knows Supabase and is willing to own accounts, payments and operations, it is an excellent tool, with a community and a catalogue we do not have.
Kubbler
You want to ship a product that takes money and holds up, without being the person answerable for security and payments. The foundation is written, tested and operated by engineers, it is the same for every project, and it is fixed for everyone at once. Hosting in Paris, a monthly subscription, your own Stripe account.
Line by line, no corners rounded off.
Every line about the other product comes from its own public documentation. The two lines where it beats us are in the table, not buried further down.
Comparison checked on 10 September 2026 against the vendor's public documentation. These products move fast: if a line is wrong, write to us and we will fix it.See the source
The three differences that matter.
Three gaps that are not a matter of settings, but of how the two products are built.
The foundations never go through the model
At Lovable the application code is produced by the model, project by project, including what touches accounts and money; the managed backend covers authentication and data isolation, the rest is generated. Here that layer is never generated: it is written once, reviewed, run in production, and shared by every project.
Accounts, two-factor authentication, roles and abuse quotas: the same code for everyone.
Stripe payments: one-off, subscriptions, failed charges and invoices, on your own account.
A fix in the platform reaches every customer the same day, with nobody re-prompting anything.
Your bill does not follow the size of your project
Lovable bills in credits, whose cost varies with task complexity. That is consistent with their model: the project goes through the AI on every iteration. Here the foundation is not in the loop, so there is nothing to re-price when the application grows.
A monthly subscription: hosting, certificate and backups included.
No commission on what you take in, payments run through your own Stripe account.
The price of a change does not depend on how many files your project has.
What you take with you, and what you leave
On this point Lovable is ahead, and it should be said: their project is a standard Vite and React application, synced both ways with your repository, that you can self-host without restriction. On our side the code of your product exports to GitHub, but the foundation stays operated by us.
Your product exports at any time: conventional JavaScript any developer can read.
The platform itself stays with us. That is the price of having it run and fixed for every project at once.
Worth noting on their side: their documentation states that migrating from the managed backend to plain PostgreSQL is not supported out of the box.
The questions we get asked.
Precise answers, including the ones that do not favour us.
Not with a button, and nobody should promise you otherwise. What carries over quickly is the intent: you describe the product as it stands, the AI recomposes it on the platform, and you get accounts, payments and emails without rewriting them. The code Lovable generated does not transplant: it does not sit on the same foundations.
It depends entirely on your usage, and the two models do not compare line for line. Lovable bills credits spent on building and on the managed backend; we bill a monthly subscription, hosting included, that does not move as the project grows. A prototype thrown away after a week will cost less with them; an application maintained for a year, rarely.
For the product layer, yes: GitHub export from the editor, conventional JavaScript on Next.js, readable by any developer. For the foundations, no: they stay operated by us. Lovable is more open on this point, and it is a real criterion if your goal is to take everything in house.
It can, and the result passes the demo. The problem is not writing authentication once, it is reviewing, maintaining and fixing it in every project where it was rewritten differently. A single foundation is fixed once for every customer; generated code is fixed project by project, assuming somebody reads it.
Yes, and it is a reasonable way to work. Plenty of teams explore an idea wherever it is fastest, then rebuild on a foundation once it is validated. Nothing forces you to pick a tool before you have settled the product.
With us: in Paris, at Scaleway, one dedicated database per project, isolated from the others, with automatic backups and a DPA available. For Lovable, refer to their documentation: the managed backend and the Supabase option, managed or self-hosted, do not give the same answer.
The best comparison is your own.
Free during the beta, no card required. Describe the same product on both sides and compare what comes out, including what is left to do afterwards.