Comparison
Three paths to a product. Here is ours.
Demos impress, quotes cause concern, and nobody answers the question that matters: what is left when something breaks? Here is how we position Maestro alongside the other paths, each with its own audience, without claiming to speak for them.
| Maestro | AI-assisted coding tool | Agency or freelancer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Designed for | People who do not code, and product professionals | Depending on the tool: beginners, product professionals or developers | People who prefer to delegate everything |
| What you see | A clear workspace: readable documents, a work plan and progress | A chat, visual preview or code editor, depending on the tool | Conversations, meetings and deliveries |
| How you approve | At each stage, in everyday language (“Looks good to me”) | Through previews, tests, a plan or code review | At the milestones set in the contract |
| From product to launch | In one place: product, deployment, website and campaign | Some include hosting, data and deployment | Depending on the contract, sometimes optional |
| Where your data lives | Project on your machine; AI assistants process the elements sent to them | Depends on the tool: often hosted by the vendor | Depends on the contract and hosting chosen |
| Cost during the beta | Free; AI usage costs remain with your provider | Usually a subscription, varying by plan | Quoted according to scope |
The “AI-assisted coding tool” and “Agency or freelancer” columns describe general cases: each tool and provider has its own rules.
The method, measured
AI marketing figures have earned your skepticism: 46% of developers distrust these tools' accuracy (Stack Overflow 2025 survey). So here are ours, including the protocol and its limits. We measured the method directing Maestro's agents against BMAD-METHOD v6, the reference open method, on identical projects taken from idea to verified product. Three judges per submission, anonymized submissions, shared rubrics: 93.3 out of 100 for Maestro, 83.5 for the reference. In the cost campaign (nine projects), Maestro finished all nine for $115.65; the reference ran out of budget three times, for $238.66. The original restraint also holds: agents receive roughly ten times less method text than the reference, unchanged from version to version.
The limits, alongside the figures
These scores come from our own protocol: panels of AIs that build, run and probe the code rather than just read it. One run per project leaves noise; between two versions of the method, we only draw conclusions from paired comparisons, with the same judge reviewing both submissions. The full protocol is documented and reproducible, and the journal covers the entire campaign, including the initial defeat.
What's next
See the evidence in ten minutes.
A table proves nothing until you see it working. The guided tour shows you: you direct a team of agents without ever opening a terminal.