Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the structural quality of code generated by three popular vibe coding tools鈥擫ovable, v0, and Replit鈥攂y analyzing nine web applications produced from a single prompt. Using SonarQube for static analysis, the researchers assessed various metrics, including issue counts, severity distributions, and complexity measures. The results reveal that while Lovable generates code with lower severity issues, it has a higher density of code smells, indicating significant trade-offs in quality that developers must consider when selecting a coding tool.
Choosing a vibe coding tool isn't just about productivity; it involves navigating complex trade-offs in code quality that can impact long-term maintainability.
The use of AI agents for automatic code generation has become increasingly common in software development. However, concerns remain about the quality of the generated code, including aspects of maintainability, readability, and long-term evolution. This study compares the structural quality of code produced by three widely adopted vibe coding tools --- Lovable, v0, and Replit --- starting from a single generation prompt. We generate three independent projects per tool, totalling nine web applications, and submit them to static analysis with SonarQube. We collect metrics such as the number of issues, severity distribution, estimated remediation effort, cyclomatic and cognitive complexity, and code duplication. Preliminary results show that the tools exhibit distinct qualitative profiles: Lovable concentrates issues of lower severity but presents a substantially higher density of code smells per KLOC, while v0 and Replit produce more code with more aggressive severity profiles. These findings suggest that choosing between vibe coding tools involves structural trade-offs that go beyond perceived productivity.
