Coding · Head-to-head

Cody vs Lovable

Cody (paid, AI Score 6.4/10) vs Lovable (freemium, AI Score 8.4/10). Side-by-side pricing, features, pros and cons, and which to pick.

The verdict

Pick Cody if…

→your primary use case is platform and developer-experience teams at large organisations already running sourcegraph, who need repo-wide ai answers under their own permission model and cloud-hosted inference.

Try Cody →

Pick Lovable if…

→you need a genuinely free option
→budget is the constraint
→overall capability matters more than price (AI Score 8.4 vs 6.4)
→your primary use case is founders and product or design people with no engineering team who need a working full-stack mvp — signup, database and hosting included — rather than a frontend mockup they still have to get built.

Try Lovable →

Spec	Cody	Lovable
Category	Coding	Coding
Pricing model	paid	freemium
Headline pricing	Enterprise only — check website for current pricing	Free credit tier + Pro from ~$25/mo (credit-based) — check site for current credit allowances
Free tier	—	Free credit-based tier for building and publishing public projects; enough to evaluate the tool, not enough to iterate seriously on a real app
AI Score	6.4/10	8.4/10
Best for	Platform and developer-experience teams at large organisations already running Sourcegraph, who need repo-wide AI answers under their own permission model and cloud-hosted inference.	Founders and product or design people with no engineering team who need a working full-stack MVP — signup, database and hosting included — rather than a frontend mockup they still have to get built.
Editor's pick	—	—
Use cases	development	development productivity design
Date added	2026-05-01	2025-10-01

Coding · paid

✓Context comes from a real code-search index rather than a bolted-on vector store, so cross-repository answers cite actual definitions and references
✓Model routing through Amazon Bedrock or Azure OpenAI keeps inference inside your own cloud account — a hard requirement in regulated environments
✓Inherits Sourcegraph repository permissions, so it cannot surface code a user isn't cleared to see
✓Self-hosted and air-gapped deployment options that most AI coding assistants simply do not offer
✓Adds AI on top of an installation many large engineering orgs already run, rather than introducing a new vendor

×The self-serve Free and Pro tiers were retired in 2025 — individual developers can no longer buy this, which is a major change from earlier reviews
×Sourcegraph's agentic coding investment moved to Amp, so Cody no longer receives the company's headline feature work
×No autonomous multi-file agent loop comparable to Cursor, Claude Code, or Sourcegraph's own Amp
×Requires a Sourcegraph deployment and index before it delivers its one differentiator — a heavy prerequisite if you aren't already a customer

Coding · freemium

✓Backend is generated with the app — Postgres, auth, storage and edge functions provisioned from the same prompt
✓Two-way GitHub sync means the output is a real repo you can take to an IDE and bring back
✓Publishing, hosting and custom domains are built in; no separate deploy step to figure out
✓Genuinely usable by non-developers, which most of its competitors only claim to be
✓Figma import and click-to-edit reduce the number of chat turns spent on visual tweaks

×Credit-based pricing makes spend unpredictable — a stubborn bug can burn a chunk of the monthly allowance with nothing to show
×Security defaults have a documented failure record: published apps have exposed data through misconfigured Supabase row-level security, and the built-in scanner is not a substitute for review
×Complexity ceiling is real — beyond a moderately sized app, editing by conversation becomes slower than editing by hand
×Web only: no native mobile builds, and the generated stack is React-shaped whether or not that suits the project

Updated 2026-08-10. Spec data sourced from official product pages and tracked in our public directory at /tools.