AI Coding Showdown: 5 Tools Battle to Build My CRM (Bolt, Lovable, Replit Tested)

Lately, that chase led me straight into the wild world of AI coding, or "vibe coding" as the cool kids (and maybe just me?) are calling it. Like half the internet, I saw the shiny demos promising production-ready apps with a few keystrokes and thought, "Sign me UP."

Naturally, reality hit faster than a poorly optimized database query.

While these tools are game-changers, especially for someone like me who isn't a hardcore dev but knows enough to be dangerous, they're not exactly the magic code fairies the hype cycle suggests. There's... debugging. Oh boy, is there debugging.

So, I decided to put my newfound "skills" (read: patience for error messages) and marketing budget to the test.

I pitted five popular AI coding tools against each other in a proper showdown.

The mission? Build the exact same CRM application in each one, using the exact same inputs.

No funny business, just a straight-up comparison to see who choked, who charmed, and who just plain confused me.

The Setup:

• The Goal: A basic but functional CRM.

• The Contenders: Bolt, Lovable, Replit, vZero (by Vercel), and Tempo (by Tempo Labs).

• The Ammo: Identical Product Requirements Doc (PRD), Technical Spec (React, TS, Tailwind, Postgres via Supabase), and User Stories. (Thanks, Claude AI, for generating my standardized homework!).

Let's see how my descent into AI coding madness went, shall we?

Contender #1: Bolt - The Gateway Drug

Bolt was my first hit of AI coding, the one that got me hooked. It's brilliant at that initial dopamine rush – turning a vague idea into something visual almost instantly. For a non-coder, seeing a UI materialize from a prompt is pure magic.

I figured, "Easy peasy, CRM time!"

Yeah, about that.

Bolt happily ingested my documents, started spitting out TypeScript, and then promptly tripped over its own feet. Errors popped up demanding a Supabase connection. Okay, fair enough, the integration was built-in and relatively smooth.

But then came the debugging death loop. Fixing one thing (missing components) led to another (Supabase client issues), and then the classic clash of coding conventions (camelCase vs. snake_case – why, world, WHY?).

It chewed through free tokens so fast I had to whip out the company card just to keep the experiment going. For science, obviously.

• The Process: Understood the doc upload request, started coding based on inputs.

• The Hurdles: Immediate errors, needed Supabase connection, fell into multiple debugging cycles (components, client config, naming conventions), hit free token limits requiring upgrade.

• The Outcome: Produced a visually decent login screen and a demo-data-filled dashboard preview. Got it to show an empty state, but actually making core features like adding contacts or deals work consistently failed due to persistent database schema mismatches ("Cannot find column X..."). Eventually hit a wall where Bolt admitted it couldn't directly fix the Supabase schema. Ouch.

• The (Slightly Salty) Verdict: Great for whipping up a pretty facade or simple landing pages. For anything requiring database depth? Prepare for pain, and maybe keep your credit card handy.

Contender #2: Lovable - The Surprise Overachiever

Lovable felt like Bolt's slightly more serious, perhaps more capable sibling. It also boasted solid Supabase integration, which immediately piqued my interest after the Bolt debacle.

Could this be the one?

The process was similar, though Lovable preferred my docs pasted into its "Knowledge" section (a bit clunky, but whatever). It digested the info and got to work. Connecting Supabase was a breeze. Here's where Lovable impressed: it didn't just wait for errors. It proactively suggested setting up Row Level Security (RLS) policies – crucial for real-world apps – and generated the SQL for tables and policies. Points for thinking ahead, Lovable! Sure, there were still glitches (blank screen after login, needing to disable Supabase email confirmation for testing), but the backend progress felt more... intentional.

• The Process: Docs pasted into "Knowledge," started building layout/auth/dashboard, smooth Supabase connection.

• The Hurdles: Proactive RLS/SQL generation (actually a good thing!), needed Supabase email confirmation disabled, initial blank screen post-login required fixing, task creation glitched later.

• The Outcome: Ding ding ding! We had the most success here. Lovable delivered a CRM with working login/signup. Most importantly, I could actually create contacts, leads, AND deals, and they stuck around in the database! Even the Kanban pipeline view for deals kinda worked. Still rough around the edges, but functionally miles ahead.

• The (Slightly Salty) Verdict: Well, colour me surprised. Lovable actually navigated the backend complexities far better than Bolt, delivering something that resembled a working application. Still buggy, but the clear winner in this specific cage match.

Contender #3: Replit - The Autonomous Agent (Almost)

Replit was less familiar territory, but I'd heard whispers about its "agent-like" approach. The vibe is a bit more dev-focused, but the AI chat interface keeps it accessible. I was curious about its reputed ability to self-debug.

It definitely tried to live up to the hype.

After taking the inputs, it presented a full "App Development Plan" with time estimates (cute!). Watching it work was different – it showed file edits in real-time and, when errors occurred, you could see it pause, "reason," and attempt fixes before crying for help. It felt like it was genuinely trying to figure things out. Pretty cool, slightly unnerving. However, even with its autonomous aspirations, authentication needed manual debugging, and while I could create a contact (success!), getting leads or deals to work hit a wall. The connection between front-end action and backend persistence seemed incomplete.

• The Process: Proposed an "App Development Plan," showed real-time coding/edits, attempted autonomous error diagnosis and fixing.

• The Hurdles: Initial preview was static, auth setup needed debugging, getting the live test URL wasn't obvious, core feature implementation stalled.

• The Outcome: Working auth flow achieved. Decent-looking dashboard. Successfully created a contact that persisted after refresh. Failed to get lead or deal creation working.

• The (Slightly Salty) Verdict: The autonomous agent concept is super promising, and watching it try to self-heal was impressive. Got partway there, but ultimately couldn't bridge the gap to full core functionality in this test. Potential is there, though.

Contender #4: v0 (by Vercel) - The Front-End Specialist?

Backed by the deployment kings at Vercel, I expected v0 to be slick, maybe focusing heavily on the front-end.

Its initial move was interesting: database setup first, recommending Neon DB.

And that's where the slickness ended and the complexity began.

Following v0's lead felt like assembling IKEA furniture designed by Kafka. It involved Neon, then bringing in Clerk for auth, messing with JWT secrets, manually configuring templates, running SQL scripts... my non-coder marketer brain was screaming.

I waved the white flag and asked:

"Can we PLEASE just use Supabase like the others?"

v0 agreed... and then promptly failed spectacularly.

It couldn't even execute the basic SQL to create the Supabase tables, hitting errors it couldn't autonomously fix. Game over before it really began.

• The Process: Unique DB-first approach, recommended Neon.

• The Hurdles: Initial Neon/Clerk path was overly complex for a non-coder. Switched to Supabase, but hit immediate, unresolvable SQL execution errors during basic schema setup. Progress completely blocked.

• The Outcome: Couldn't even get the database structure built via Supabase after abandoning the complicated Neon/Clerk route. No functional app components were achieved beyond the initial error state.

• The (Slightly Salty) Verdict: Maybe v0 shines for generating gorgeous front-end code snippets (its reputation suggests so). For building a full-stack app with a database in this test? An absolute non-starter. Way too complex, then fell apart on the basics. Hard pass for this use case.

Contender #5: Tempo (by Tempo Labs) - The Concept Car

Tempo, a YC grad, brings a unique angle: it integrates PRD generation and visualizes your app's structure as a flowchart with live screen previews.

As a visual thinker and marketer, I thought, "This could be it!"

Getting started was... a battle.

Tempo insisted on generating its own PRD and fought me tooth-and-nail when I tried to input my standardized docs (copy-paste disabled? Really?). After wrestling the inputs in, the flowchart concept was cool. Connecting Supabase was fine. But then came the coding... or rather, the error-ing. It felt like a constant barrage of SQL migration fails and database issues. "Fix with AI" became my most-clicked button. Eventually, I thought I had working authentication. I logged in... to a completely blank white screen. The void stared back. Trying to debug that somehow broke the entire preview system, making the flowchart show the login screen on every single page. A truly spectacular flameout.

• The Process: Unique integrated PRD/flowchart visualization. Smooth Supabase connect after wrestling with initial doc input.

• The Hurdles: Initial difficulty using provided docs, UI quirks, plagued by constant SQL/database errors during build, required constant "Fix with AI" attempts.

• The Outcome: Achieved login/registration, but logging in led to a blank screen. Further debugging broke the preview system entirely, showing login page everywhere. No usable CRM UI displayed.

• The (Slightly Salty) Verdict: A+ for concept, D- for execution in this test. The visual flowchart is genuinely a great idea for non-coders. But the underlying coding and debugging engine felt incredibly fragile and ultimately failed dramatically. Needs a lot more time in the oven.

The Grand (and Slightly Underwhelming) Verdict

So, after hours of prompting, debugging, and resisting the urge to throw my monitor out the window, who "won" this AI coding CRM challenge?

Based purely on delivering the most functional piece of the requested CRM, Lovable takes the slightly tarnished crown. It was the only tool that allowed me to actually perform the core CRM actions (create contact, lead, deal) and see them persist.

But let's pour some cold water on that coronation:

NONE of these tools delivered a finished, bug-free, production-ready application.

Not even close.

The dream of "prompt-to-SaaS" is still very much a dream. This was less about finding a silver bullet and more about discovering which tool offered the least painful path forward for a non-coder tackling a moderately complex task.

My Hard-Earned Lessons (So You Don't Have To?)

Diving headfirst into this AI coding wave as a marketer has been... illuminating. Here's the real talk:

1. AI Coding /= Magic Wand: Seriously, curb your enthusiasm. These tools are powerful assistants, not miracle workers. Expect iteration, frustration, and lots of "Why isn't this working?!" moments.

2. You WILL Become a Debugger: Forget fancy prompts; your most used skill will be interpreting cryptic error messages and trying to explain the problem back to the AI. Welcome to the 80% debugging / 20% coding club (or maybe 95/5 for us non-coders).

3. The Backend is Still Hard™: Getting a UI to look pretty is the easy part. Making it talk to a database, handle authentication securely, and manage data correctly? That's where these tools often struggle or introduce painful complexity. Solid, simple backend integration (like Lovable's Supabase flow) is a huge plus.

4. Your Inputs Are EVERYTHING (Seriously): Garbage in, buggy code out. A clear, detailed PRD, well-defined user stories, and specific tech specs aren't optional; they're critical for guiding the AI. The more precise you are, the better (though still not perfect) the result.

5. Pick Your Poison (Wisely): These tools aren't created equal. Some excel at UI (Bolt, maybe v0 conceptually), some handle backend better (Lovable in this test), some try to be autonomous (Replit), and some have cool concepts but shaky foundations (Tempo). Match the tool to your project's needs and your tolerance for debugging pain.

This experiment was a blast, despite the headaches. AI coding tools are undeniably cool and are already changing how we can approach software creation. As a marketer, being able to rapidly prototype and even build functional pieces is incredibly empowering.

Just... keep your expectations grounded, your coffee pot full, and your "Fix with AI" button finger ready.

What are your experiences?

Found an AI coding tool that doesn't make you want to cry?

Drop your thoughts in the comments below – misery loves company, and success stories are even better!

Catch you on the next wave,
Jacob