AI coding tools: Head-to-head
A comparison of Bolt, Cursor, Replit and Windsurf building the same project.
I had a random idea to build a web-based drum machine using AI coding tools. So, I thought it would make for a perfect head-to-head comparison.
I pitted four different AI coding tools against each other - Replit, Cursor, Bolt, and Windsurf - to see which could best help me create the best site the quickest.
Let's dive into what happened.
In this post:
How each AI coding tool approaches the same creative challenge
The winner and why it outperformed competitors
Real obstacles you'll encounter when building audio applications with AI
Practical tips for getting better results from these tools
The critical deployment considerations that separate prototypes from products
The challenge
The prompt was the same across all tools:
I want to build a website where users can play one of those DJ drum kits that they press buttons on, and I want it to go from really basic level, so maybe there's only a few options, a few buttons to press and a few knobs, all the way up to, like, really extreme and make that really crazily hard.
No technical specs. No design requirements. Just a simple concept with difficulty progression that left plenty of room for each AI to interpret and exercise its creative muscles. A perfect little test that should be straightforward enough for any decent AI coding assistant, right?
I set up with all four tools running simultaneously:
Replit (using Agent v2)
Bolt (with my Chrome extension enabled)
Windsurf (first time using it)
Cursor (with the latest update and custom modes)
Four contenders enter. Only one leaves with the crown. May the best AI win.
The early results
I fired the prompt across all four tools and settled in to watch the AI programming battle unfold.
Bolt
Bolt jumped ahead initially with a basic interface, but I quickly ran into issues. While some pads worked (the kick and snare specifically), others remained silent. The volume controls were particularly problematic - practically inaudible despite being at maximum level. After some unsuccessful troubleshooting attempts, Bolt became the first casualty in my experiment.
🥉Verdict: Eliminated early for critical functionality failure.
Windsurf
Windsurf struggled with similar audio issues. Despite multiple attempts to fix the non-functioning pads, I couldn't get a complete working set. It took longer than Bolt to reach the same basic functionality, and ultimately hit the same roadblocks. Windsurf joined Bolt on the sidelines.
🥉 Verdict: Eliminated after extended troubleshooting failed to produce working audio.
The finalists: Replit vs. Cursor
With two tools eliminated, it came down to Replit and Cursor.
Cursor
Cursor held out longer in the competition, managing to implement partially functioning audio - which was already leaps ahead of our first two contenders. Some pads made sounds (albeit faint ones), while others remained silent.
But where Cursor really let me down was in the UI department. Despite explicitly mentioning Teenage Engineering as design inspiration and even providing screenshots, Cursor produced a UI that could best be described as "early 2000s web design meets Fisher-Price." No amount of prompting could steer it toward a more modern, minimalist aesthetic.
The final straw came when I switched to Claude 3.5 in a desperate attempt to improve the design, only to watch it produce an equally disappointing interface. The audio issues combined with the design failures ultimately led to Cursor's elimination.
🥈Verdict: Eliminated for poor UI implementation and partial audio functionality.
Replit: The tortoise wins the race
Replit's methodical approach initially had me worried. While other tools were quickly showing visible (if broken) results, Replit seemed to be taking its sweet time.
But as the saying goes: measure twice, cut once.
When Replit finally revealed its creation, I was genuinely impressed. Not only did it implement working audio across all pads, but it also included features I hadn't explicitly requested:
A full beat sequencer for background rhythms.
Record, save, and load functionality for created beats.
Difficulty progression from basic to intermediate to advanced.
The UI wasn't exactly Teenage Engineering quality, but it was clean, functional, and visually coherent - leagues ahead of what Cursor managed to produce. Most importantly, everything actually worked.
Replit accomplished all this with minimal hand-holding. I only needed to provide about five prompts total (including a few minor tweaks), compared to the constant coaxing required by the other tools.
🏆 Verdict: Clear winner with the most complete, functional implementation.
Deployment
The final test was deployment - getting our drum pad online for the world to see. Here again, Replit shined.
Deployment was essentially one-click within the Replit environment. There was a minor hiccup with audio permissions in the deployed version (which required a browser permission prompt), but Replit quickly identified and fixed the issue.
The other tools never made it to this stage, but it's worth noting that they would have required significantly more effort to deploy. Cursor, for instance, would have needed manual GitHub and Vercel setup - steps that Replit handled automatically.
Replit even provided analytics, logs, and other production features that would have required additional setup with the other tools.
The winner's circle
Replit emerged as the undisputed champion. It wasn't just that it "won" - it's how decisively it won.
Replit's victory comes down to three key factors:
Thoroughness: It didn't rush to show partial results; it built a complete, working solution.
Feature richness: It went beyond the basic requirements to implement genuinely useful extras.
Reliability: The code actually worked, and deployment was painless.
The results genuinely surprised me. I expected a closer competition, perhaps with Cursor (not taking into account deployment) taking the crown. Instead, Replit - often thought of primarily as an educational tool - delivered the most professional result by far.
And it’s not exactly a fair fight, these tools are built in different ways for different types of people. But ultimately their end promise is the same, so I went into this trying to test that.
Key takeaways
This experiment revealed a few things:
Rushing to show results doesn't always pay off: The tools that quickly produced visual output ultimately failed, while Replit's measured approach yielded superior results. Although it’s usually really quick - I wonder if the longer build was due to the complexity of the app?
AI models still go wild with design: Asking for complicated design doesn’t help, but even with code snippets, screenshots etc., the latest models seemed to struggle - or go haywire on their own then not recognise their own mistakes.
The development experience varies dramatically: Each tool offered a distinctly different development workflow.
Integration matters: Replit's end-to-end solution (from coding to deployment) provided a really smooth experience.
If you're looking to quickly build functional web applications with AI assistance, Replit's agent capabilities currently seem to offer the most comprehensive approach - from ideation through to deployment. But the field is evolving rapidly, and I'm curious to see how these tools get better!
Until then, I'll be training to become an AI drum DJ and giving Fred Again a run for his money.