About this site and how it is researched

⚠️ PUBLISHER: THIS PAGE NEEDS COMPLETING BEFORE LAUNCH.

Replace every bracketed field below. BYLINE_MODE in build_site.py controls whether pages are attributed to a named person or a registered business entity.

A made-up person is not one of the options, and not for squeamish reasons. Author-entity verification works by matching a byline against external profiles — LinkedIn, Wikidata, ORCID — through schema sameAs. An invented person has none, so verification systems detect the gap and discount the page. It fails at the exact job it would be invented for, while adding a deception problem on top. See RESEARCH-FINDINGS.md.

Who publishes this

The App Builder Report — independent research on AI app builders

• Registered: see the contact address below
• Contact: [a monitored email address]
• [Optional: link to the registry listing]

This site is published under a business name rather than an individual byline, by a developer with 20 apps published to the App Store, all built with Rork Max.

We are upfront that anonymity is a weaker trust signal than a named expert with a professional profile. What replaces it here is evidence you can check without knowing who we are: the apps are public, the pricing is dated, the sources are linked, and where two sources disagree we say so rather than picking one.

The contact address above reaches a person who answers.

What this site is

A research resource on AI app builders — the tools that turn a written description into a working app.

The category is genuinely useful and relentlessly oversold. Most comparison pages ranking for these queries are published by one of the tools being compared. The aim here is narrower and more boring: get the facts right, date them, and say plainly where each tool falls down.

The affiliate relationship, stated plainly

This site earns a commission if you sign up to Rork through our links. No other tool covered here pays us anything.

That is a real bias and you should read accordingly. Three things we do about it:

1. Every affiliate link is marked at the point of use, not buried in a footer.
2. The comparison chart has a dedicated section on where Rork loses, including the fact that it is not the only tool that ships native mobile apps — a claim its own marketing leans on.
3. We recommend competitors where they are the better fit. Rork vs FlutterFlow concludes FlutterFlow is more capable. Rork vs Bolt.new concludes Bolt is better if you can use a terminal. Those conclusions cost us money and they are what the evidence supports.

If a page ever reads as though the affiliate link decided the conclusion, that is a failure and we would like to hear about it.

Methodology

What we do

Primary sources first. Pricing comes from vendor pricing pages and documentation, cross-checked against at least one independent write-up. Where two sources disagree — as they currently do on whether Lovable's credits roll over — we mark the row disputed rather than picking the version that suits the argument.

Everything is dated. Every factual page carries a "verified" date. This category changes monthly and an undated price is worthless.

Quarterly re-verification. Every pricing table is re-checked and re-dated at least every 90 days. The price tracker records what changed and when.

Corrections are published, not quietly edited. If we get something wrong and it materially misled someone, the correction is noted on the page.

What this site is built on

We build apps with these tools and ship them. Twenty apps built with Rork Max, all published to the App Store. Not trials — We have not linked the developer account. An App Store developer page shows the seller's name, and this site is anonymous by choice, so that link would undo it. You are therefore asked to take the app count on trust — and nothing else on this site. Every price is dated, every limit is sourced, and the dataset behind the comparisons is published in full at /data/ so you can check the reasoning without checking us.

That is deliberately checkable. This site is published anonymously, so you should not take anything here on trust — but you do not have to. The apps are public, the pricing is dated and sourced, and every factual page links out to where its claims came from.

What we do not do

We have not personally shipped production apps with every tool on this site. Our hands-on experience is with Rork specifically. Where we compare it to Bolt.new, FlutterFlow, Lovable, Replit, v0 and Cursor, that comparison rests on vendor documentation, published pricing and independent coverage — not on having shipped with each one.

That distinction matters and we would rather draw it ourselves than have you assume more than we can back. The Rork material is experience. The comparisons are research.

We do not fabricate experience. No invented test sessions, no manufactured screenshots, no detail we cannot stand behind. Where a number would strengthen a page and we do not have it, the page goes without it.

We do not publish user reviews or testimonials. Where we cite public review data we name the platform, the score and the sample size, so you can weigh it yourself. Small samples are described as small samples.

We publish anonymously. That is a weaker trust signal than a named author with a professional profile, and we would rather say so than pretend otherwise. What we offer instead is external verification: the apps, the sources, the dated claims. Check any of it.

Where the numbers come from

• Pricing: vendor pages, cross-checked against No Code MBA and other independent coverage
• Capabilities: vendor documentation, particularly for build and publishing workflows
• Review sentiment: Trustpilot and Product Hunt, always with sample sizes attached
• App Store process: Apple's published requirements plus independent 2026 reporting on review timelines
• The cost calculator: our own model, built from published industry rate bands. The methodology is documented on the page itself. It is an estimate, and it says so.

Why you can check everything

Every factual page ends with its sources, linked. If a claim here matters to a decision you are about to make, follow the link and confirm it. That is not a disclaimer — it is the point. A page you can verify is worth more than a page you have to trust.

Corrections

Found something wrong? simpletonfacts@gmail.com

Corrections are free, welcome, and published rather than quietly edited when the error was material. We would rather fix something than defend it.

Three kinds of correction we particularly want:

1. A price that has changed. Pricing is re-verified quarterly, which means it can be up to 90 days stale between checks. Tell us and we will update immediately and log it.
2. A capability we have described wrongly. If a tool has shipped something that makes a row in the comparison chart wrong, that row is now actively misleading people.
3. A conclusion that reads as though the affiliate link wrote it. That is the failure mode this whole site is structured to avoid, and outside eyes catch it better than we do.

Our record on recommending competitors

Not a claim, a checkable fact:

• The decision tool has seven possible outcomes. One is the tool we earn from. Four actively route elsewhere. The routing logic is printed at the bottom of that page.
• Rork vs FlutterFlow concludes FlutterFlow is the more capable tool.
• Rork vs Bolt.new concludes Bolt is the better pick for anyone comfortable with a terminal.

• The comparison chart has a standing section on where Rork loses, including that it is not the only builder shipping native mobile apps — a claim its own marketing leans on.

• We pay for Rork Max at $200/month ourselves, and the review still says the $25 tier is the better buy for anyone building one straightforward app.

Those conclusions cost us money. They are what the evidence supports.