v0 or Lovable: one builds a screen, the other an application, neither writes the specification

v0 excels at interfaces and fits into teams that already have review rules. Lovable puts a complete application online in an evening. Neither produces the document stating what the product must do, and that absence has a later cost.

v0 or Lovable: the division is visible in the publishers' pricing pages recorded September 2, 2026. v0 charges $30 per user per month with $30 of included credits, one credit equalling one dollar of consumption; Lovable starts at $25 per month and sells 50-credit top-ups for $15.

Two different objects

v0 is Vercel's agent, focused on React and Next.js interfaces and designed for teams already in its ecosystem. It offers selection-based visual editing and design systems, and one credit equals one dollar of consumption, making bills readable without conversion: the free plan gives $5 of monthly credits, Plus $30 per person plus $2 per day you sign in. Lovable produces a complete web application, including a database and user sign-in, published at a working address that same evening. The first returns a quality screen someone must connect to real data; the second an online product whose interface will age faster. This difference explains almost all contradictory reviews: a tester seeking a mockup finds v0 perfect, someone wanting an online service finds it incomplete, and both are right.

What each does better than the other

For going live, Lovable wins. A secure address, working database, nothing to configure. For fitting into a team already working with rules, v0 wins by far: it opens a work branch, creates a pull request, the procedure for reviewing a change before integrating it into the product, respects mandatory reviews and checks, and offers buttons to resolve conflicts or rerun a failed check. No other tool in this category, including Maestro, fits as well into a team with established safeguards. The downside fits in one line: that safeguard goes through a developer's doorway, incomprehensible to anyone who is not one.

Taking over an existing project

The divide is clear. v0 imports an existing project from your code host and opens its work branch at the first change. Lovable says no, explicitly in its own FAQ: there is currently no way to start a Lovable project from existing code. We detailed it in our Lovable review: the exit is generous, with the publisher claiming you are never locked in, but entry stays closed. For a business owner with an existing first tool, that asymmetry often decides matters alone and deserves checking before subscribing rather than in month six.

The specification nobody writes

Neither produces an approved requirements document before writing code. v0 has no documented scoping phase; it executes commands in a sandbox, so tests can run if you have written them. Lovable offers a Plan mode preparing work without modifying the project, charged at one credit per message, and verification tools that, according to its documentation, usually run only when requested. This is where Maestro operates: a team of named agents writes a brief then a French requirements document, you correct them and say 'Looks good to me' before a single line exists, tests are written before code, and every step is checked individually. The price of this method is your reading time, paid in evenings rather than credits.

Choose according to what you already have

Three situations, three answers. You want to show a credible screen to a partner on Thursday, and your team already applies review rules: choose v0. You want an online application with accounts and a database, without touching a server: choose Lovable, watching credits that expire two months after issuance. You intend to maintain the product for years, charge for it, and develop it: first write the document stating what it must do, then choose the tool to execute it, and examine what separates a prototype from a product. Quoted amounts are in dollars; neither publisher displayed euro prices when recorded.