Un article étiquetés avec "product management"

Product managers (PMs) are drawn to Bolt.new and Lovable for rapid prototyping of apps with AI. These tools promise “idea to app in seconds,” letting a PM create functional UIs or MVPs without full development teams. However, real-world user feedback reveals several pain points. Common frustrations include clunky UX causing inefficiencies, difficulty collaborating with teams, limited integrations into existing toolchains, lack of support for long-term product planning, and insufficient analytics or tracking features. Below, we break down the key issues (with direct user commentary) and compare how each tool measures up.

UX/UI Issues Hindering Efficiency​

Both Bolt.new and Lovable are cutting-edge but not foolproof, and PMs often encounter UX/UI quirks that slow them down:

• Unpredictable AI Behavior & Errors: Users report that these AI builders frequently produce errors or unexpected changes, forcing tedious trial-and-error. One non-technical user described spending “3 hours [on] repeated errors” just to add a button, burning through all their tokens in the process. In fact, Bolt.new became notorious for generating “blank screens, missing files, and partial deployments” when projects grew beyond basic prototypes. This unpredictability means PMs must babysit the AI’s output. A G2 reviewer noted that Lovable’s prompts “can change unexpectedly, which can be confusing,” and if the app logic gets tangled, “it can be a lot of work to get it back on track” – in one case they had to restart the whole project. Such resets and rework are frustrating when a PM is trying to move fast.

• High Iteration Costs (Tokens & Time): Both platforms use usage-limited models (Bolt.new via tokens, Lovable via message credits), which can hamper efficient experimentation. Several users complain that Bolt’s token system is overly consumptive – “You need way more tokens than you think,” one user wrote, “as soon as you hook up a database… you’ll run into trouble that [the AI] has issues solving in just one or two prompts”. The result is iterative cycles of prompting and fixing that eat up allowances. Another frustrated Bolt.new adopter quipped: “30% of your tokens are used to create an app. The other 70%… to find solutions for all the errors and mistakes Bolt created.” This was echoed by a reply: “very true! [I] already renewed [my subscription] thrice in a month!”. Lovable’s usage model isn’t immune either – its basic tier may not be sufficient for even a simple app (one reviewer “subscribed to [the] basic level and that does not really give me enough to build a simple app”, noting a steep jump in cost for the next tier). For PMs, this means hitting limits or incurring extra cost just to iterate on a prototype, a clear efficiency killer.

• Limited Customization & UI Control: While both tools generate UIs quickly, users have found them lacking in fine-tuning capabilities. One Lovable user praised the speed but lamented “the customization options [are] somewhat restricted”. Out-of-the-box templates look nice, but adjusting them beyond basic tweaks can be cumbersome. Similarly, Lovable’s AI sometimes changes code it shouldn’t – “It changes code that should not be changed when I am adding something new,” noted one user – meaning a PM’s small change could inadvertently break another part of the app. Bolt.new, on the other hand, initially provided little visual editing at all. Everything was done through prompts or editing code behind the scenes, which is intimidating for non-developers. (Lovable has started introducing a “visual edit” mode for layout and style changes, but it’s in early access.) The lack of a robust WYSIWYG editor or drag-and-drop interface (in both tools) is a pain point for PMs who don’t want to delve into code. Even Lovable’s own documentation acknowledges this gap, aiming to offer more drag-and-drop functionality in the future to make the process “more accessible to non-technical users” – implying that currently, ease-of-use still has room to improve.

• UI Workflow Glitches: Users have pointed out smaller UX issues that disrupt the smoothness of using these platforms. In Bolt.new, for example, the interface allowed a user to click “Deploy” without having configured a deployment target, leading to confusion (it “should prompt you to configure Netlify if you try to deploy but haven’t,” the user suggested). Bolt also lacked any diff or history view in its editor; it “describes what it is changing… but the actual code doesn’t show a diff,” unlike traditional dev tools. This makes it harder for a PM to understand what the AI altered on each iteration, hindering learning and trust. Additionally, Bolt’s session chat history was very short, so you couldn’t scroll back far to review earlier instructions – a problem for a PM who might step away and come back later needing context. Together, these interface flaws mean extra mental overhead to keep track of changes and state.

In summary, Bolt.new tends to prioritize raw power over polish, which can leave PMs struggling with its rough edges, whereas Lovable’s UX is friendlier but still limited in depth. As one comparison put it: “Bolt.new is great if you want raw speed and full control… generates full-stack apps fast, but you’ll be cleaning things up for production. Lovable is more structured and design-friendly… with cleaner code out of the box.” For a product manager, that “clean-up” time is a serious consideration – and many have found that what these AI tools save in initial development time, they partly give back in debugging and tweaking time.

Collaboration and Team Workflow Friction​

A crucial part of a PM’s role is working with teams – designers, developers, other PMs – but both Bolt.new and Lovable have limitations when it comes to multi-person collaboration and workflow integration.

• Lack of Native Collaboration Features: Neither tool was originally built with real-time multi-user collaboration (like a Google Docs or Figma) in mind. Projects are typically tied to a single account and edited by one person at a time. This silo can create friction in a team setting. For instance, if a PM whips up a prototype in Bolt.new, there isn’t an easy way for a designer or engineer to log in and tweak that same project simultaneously. The hand-off is clunky: usually one would export or push the code to a repository for others to work on (and as noted below, even that was non-trivial in Bolt’s case). In practice, some users resort to generating with these tools then moving the code elsewhere. One Product Hunt discussion participant admitted: after using Bolt or Lovable to get an idea, they “put it on my GitHub and end up using Cursor to finish building” – essentially switching to a different tool for team development. This indicates that for sustained collaboration, users feel the need to leave the Bolt/Lovable environment.

• Version Control and Code Sharing: Early on, Bolt.new had no built-in Git integration, which one developer called out as a “crazy” oversight: “I totally want my code… to be in Git.” Without native version control, integrating Bolt’s output into a team’s codebase was cumbersome. (Bolt provided a downloadable ZIP of code, and third-party browser extensions emerged to push that to GitHub.) This is an extra step that can break the flow for a PM trying to collaborate with developers. Lovable, by contrast, touts a “no lock-in, GitHub sync” feature, allowing users to connect a repo and push code updates. This has been a selling point for teams – one user noted they “used… Lovable for Git integration (collaborative team environment)” whereas Bolt was used only for quick solo work. In this aspect, Lovable eases team hand-off: a PM can generate an app and immediately have the code in GitHub for developers to review or continue. Bolt.new has since tried to improve, adding a GitHub connector via StackBlitz, but community feedback indicates it’s still not as seamless. Even with Git, the AI-driven code can be hard for teams to parse without documentation, since the code is machine-generated and sometimes not self-explanatory.

• Workflow Integration (Design & Dev Teams): Product managers often need to involve designers early or ensure what they build aligns with design specs. Both tools attempted integrations here (discussed more below), but there’s still friction. Bolt.new’s one advantage for developers is that it allows more direct control over tech stack – “it lets you use any framework,” as Lovable’s founder observed – which might please a dev team member who wants to pick the technology. However, that same flexibility means Bolt is closer to a developer’s playground than a guided PM tool. In contrast, Lovable’s structured approach (with recommended stack, integrated backend, etc.) might limit a developer’s freedom, but it provides a more guided path that non-engineers appreciate. Depending on the team, this difference can be a pain point: either Bolt feels too unopinionated (the PM might accidentally choose a setup the team dislikes), or Lovable feels too constrained (not using the frameworks the dev team prefers). In either case, aligning the prototype with the team’s standards takes extra coordination.

• External Collaboration Tools: Neither Bolt.new nor Lovable directly integrate with common collaboration suites (there’s no direct Slack integration for notifications, no Jira integration for tracking issues, etc.). This means any updates or progress in the tool have to be manually communicated to the team. For example, if a PM creates a prototype and wants feedback, they must share a link to the deployed app or the GitHub repo through email/Slack themselves – the platforms won’t notify the team or tie into project tickets automatically. This lack of integration with team workflows can lead to communication gaps. A PM can’t assign tasks within Bolt/Lovable, or leave comments for a teammate on a specific UI element, the way they might in a design tool like Figma. Everything has to be done ad-hoc, outside the tool. Essentially, Bolt.new and Lovable are single-player environments by design, which poses a challenge when a PM wants to use them in a multiplayer context.

In summary, Lovable edges out Bolt.new slightly for team scenarios (thanks to GitHub sync and a structured approach that non-coders find easier to follow). A product manager working solo might tolerate Bolt’s individualistic setup, but if they need to involve others, these tools can become bottlenecks unless the team creates a manual process around them. The collaboration gap is a major reason we see users export their work and continue elsewhere – the AI can jump-start a project, but traditional tools are still needed to carry it forward collaboratively.

Integration Challenges with Other Tools​

Modern product development involves a suite of tools – design platforms, databases, third-party services, etc. PMs value software that plays nicely with their existing toolkit, but Bolt.new and Lovable have a limited integration ecosystem, often requiring workarounds:

• Design Tool Integration: Product managers frequently start with design mockups or wireframes. Both Bolt and Lovable recognized this and introduced ways to import designs, yet user feedback on these features is mixed. Bolt.new added a Figma import (built on the Anima plugin) to generate code from designs, but it hasn’t lived up to the hype. An early tester noted that promo videos showed flawless simple imports, “but what about the parts that don’t [work]? If a tool is going to be a game-changer, it should handle complexity – not just the easy stuff.” In practice, Bolt struggled with Figma files that weren’t extremely tidy. A UX designer who tried Bolt’s Figma integration found it underwhelming for anything beyond basic layouts, indicating this integration can “falter on complex designs”. Lovable recently launched its own Figma-to-code pipeline via a Builder.io integration. This potentially yields cleaner results (since Builder.io interprets the Figma and hands it off to Lovable), but being new, it’s not yet widely proven. At least one comparison praised Lovable for “better UI options (Figma/Builder.io)” and a more design-friendly approach. Still, “slightly slower in generating updates” was a reported trade-off for that design thoroughness. For PMs, the bottom line is that importing designs isn’t always click-button simple – they might spend time adjusting the Figma file to suit the AI’s capabilities or cleaning up the generated UI after import. This adds friction to the workflow between designers and the AI tool.

• Backend and Database Integration: Both tools focus on front-end generation, but real apps need data and auth. The chosen solution for both Bolt.new and Lovable is integration with Supabase (a hosted PostgreSQL database + auth service). Users appreciate that these integrations exist, but there’s nuance in execution. Early on, Bolt.new’s Supabase integration was rudimentary; Lovable’s was regarded as “tighter [and] more straightforward” in comparison. The founder of Lovable highlighted that Lovable’s system is fine-tuned to handle getting “stuck” less often, including when integrating databases. That said, using Supabase still requires the PM to have some understanding of database schemas. In the Medium review of Lovable, the author had to manually create tables in Supabase and upload data, then connect it via API keys to get a fully working app (e.g. for a ticketing app’s events and venues). This process was doable, but not trivial – there’s no auto-detection of your data model, the PM must define it. If anything goes wrong in the connection, debugging is again on the user. Lovable does try to help (the AI assistant gave guidance when an error occurred during Supabase hookup), but it’s not foolproof. Bolt.new only recently “shipped a lot of improvements to their Supabase integration” after user complaints. Before that, as one user put it, “Bolt…handles front-end work but doesn't give much backend help” – beyond simple presets, you were on your own for server logic. In summary, while both tools have made backend integration possible, it’s a shallow integration. PMs can find themselves limited to what Supabase offers; anything more custom (say a different database or complex server logic) isn’t supported (Bolt and Lovable do not generate arbitrary backend code in languages like Python/Java, for example). This can be frustrating when a product’s requirements go beyond basic CRUD operations.

• Third-Party Services & APIs: A key part of modern products is connecting to services (payment gateways, maps, analytics, etc.). Lovable and Bolt can integrate APIs, but only through the prompt interface rather than pre-built plugins. For instance, a user on Reddit explained how one can tell the AI something like “I need a weather API,” and the tool will pick a popular free API and ask for the API key. This is impressive, but it’s also opaque – the PM must trust that the AI chooses a suitable API and implements calls correctly. There’s no app-store of integrations or graphical config; it’s all in how you prompt. For common services like payments or email, Lovable appears to have an edge by building them in: according to its founder, Lovable has “integrations for payments + emails” among its features. If true, that means a PM could more easily ask Lovable to add a Stripe payment form or send emails via an integrated service, whereas with Bolt one might have to manually set that up via API calls. However, documentation on these is sparse – it’s likely still handled through the AI agent rather than a point-and-click setup. The lack of clear, user-facing integration modules can be seen as a pain point: it requires trial and error to integrate something new, and if the AI doesn’t know a particular service, the PM may hit a wall. Essentially, integrations are possible but not “plug-and-play.”

• Enterprise Toolchain Integration: When it comes to integrating with the product management toolchain itself (Jira for tickets, Slack for notifications, etc.), Bolt.new and Lovable currently offer nothing out-of-the-box. These platforms operate in isolation. As a result, a PM using them has to manually update other systems. For example, if the PM had a user story in Jira (“As a user I want X feature”) and they prototype that feature in Lovable, there is no way to mark that story as completed from within Lovable – the PM must go into Jira and do it. Similarly, no Slack bot is going to announce “the prototype is ready” when Bolt finishes building; the PM has to grab the preview link and share it. This gap isn’t surprising given these tools’ early focus, but it does hinder workflow efficiency in a team setting. It’s essentially context-switching: you work in Bolt/Lovable to build, then switch to your PM tools to log progress, then maybe to your communication tools to show the team. Integrated software could streamline this, but currently that burden falls on the PM.

In short, Bolt.new and Lovable integrate well in some technical areas (especially with Supabase for data), but fall short of integrating into the broader ecosystem of tools product managers use daily. Lovable has made slightly more strides in offering built-in pathways (e.g. one-click deploy, direct GitHub, some built-in services), whereas Bolt often requires external services (Netlify, manual API setup). A NoCode MBA review explicitly contrasts this: “Lovable provides built-in publishing, while Bolt relies on external services like Netlify”. The effort to bridge these gaps – whether by manually copying code, fiddling with third-party plugins, or re-entering updates into other systems – is a real annoyance for PMs seeking a seamless experience.

Limitations in Product Planning and Roadmap Management​

Beyond building a quick prototype, product managers are responsible for planning features, managing roadmaps, and ensuring a product can evolve. Here, Bolt.new and Lovable’s scope is very narrow – they help create an app, but offer no tools for broader product planning or ongoing project management.

• No Backlog or Requirement Management: These AI app builders don’t include any notion of a backlog, user stories, or tasks. A PM can’t use Bolt.new or Lovable to list out features and then tackle them one by one in a structured way. Instead, development is driven by prompts (“Build X”, “Now add Y”), and the tools generate or modify the app accordingly. This works for ad-hoc prototyping but doesn’t translate to a managed roadmap. If a PM wanted to prioritize certain features or map out a release plan, they’d still need external tools (like Jira, Trello, or a simple spreadsheet) to do so. The AI won’t remind you what’s pending or how features relate to each other – it has no concept of project timeline or dependencies, only the immediate instructions you give.

• Difficulty Managing Larger Projects: As projects grow in complexity, users find that these platforms hit a wall. One G2 reviewer noted that “as I started to grow my portfolio, I realized there aren’t many tools for handling complex or larger projects” in Lovable. This sentiment applies to Bolt.new as well. They are optimized for greenfield small apps; if you try to build a substantial product with multiple modules, user roles, complex logic, etc., the process becomes unwieldy. There is no support for modules or packages beyond what the underlying code frameworks provide. And since neither tool allows connecting to an existing codebase, you can’t gradually incorporate AI-generated improvements into a long-lived project. This means they’re ill-suited to iterative development on a mature product. In practice, if a prototype built with Lovable needs to become a real product, teams often rewrite or refactor it outside the tool once it reaches a certain size. From a PM perspective, this limitation means you treat Bolt/Lovable outputs as disposable prototypes or starting points, not as the actual product that will be scaled up – the tools themselves don’t support that journey.

• One-Off Nature of AI Generation: Bolt.new and Lovable operate more like wizards than continuous development environments. They shine in the early ideation phase (you have an idea, you prompt it, you get a basic app). But they lack features for ongoing planning and monitoring of a product’s progress. For example, there’s no concept of a roadmap timeline where you can slot in “Sprint 1: implement login (done by AI), Sprint 2: implement profile management (to-do)”, etc. You also can’t easily revert to a previous version or branch a new feature – standard practices in product development. This often forces PMs to a throwaway mindset: use the AI to validate an idea quickly, but then restart the “proper” development in a traditional environment for anything beyond the prototype. That hand-off can be a pain point because it essentially duplicates effort or requires translation of the prototype into a more maintainable format.

• No Stakeholder Engagement Features: In product planning, PMs often gather feedback and adjust the roadmap. These AI tools don’t help with that either. For instance, you can’t create different scenarios or product roadmap options within Bolt/Lovable to discuss with stakeholders – there’s no timeline view, no feature voting, nothing of that sort. Any discussions or decisions around what to build next must happen outside the platform. A PM might have hoped, for example, that as the AI builds the app, it could also provide a list of features or a spec that was implemented, which then could serve as a living document for the team. But instead, documentation is limited (the chat history or code comments serve as the only record, and as noted, Bolt’s chat history is limited in length). This lack of built-in documentation or planning support means the PM has to manually document what the AI did and what is left to do for any sort of roadmap, which is extra work.

In essence, Bolt.new and Lovable are not substitutes for product management tools – they are assistive development tools. They “generate new apps” from scratch but won’t join you in elaborating or managing the product’s evolution. Product managers have found that once the initial prototype is out, they must switch to traditional planning & development cycles, because the AI tools won’t guide that process. As one tech blogger concluded after testing, “Lovable clearly accelerates prototyping but doesn’t eliminate the need for human expertise… it isn’t a magic bullet that will eliminate all human involvement in product development”. That underscores that planning, prioritization, and refinement – core PM activities – still rely on the humans and their standard tools, leaving a gap in what these AI platforms themselves can support.

(Lovable.dev vs Bolt.new vs Fine: Comparing AI App Builders and coding agents for startups) Most AI app builders (like Bolt.new and Lovable) excel at generating a quick front-end prototype, but they lack capabilities for complex backend code, thorough testing, or long-term maintenance. Product managers find that these tools, while great for a proof-of-concept, cannot handle the full product lifecycle beyond the initial build.

Problems with Analytics, Insights, and Tracking Progress​

Once a product (or even a prototype) is built, a PM wants to track how it’s doing – both in terms of development progress and user engagement. Here, Bolt.new and Lovable provide virtually no built-in analytics or tracking, which can be a significant pain point.

• No Built-in User Analytics: If a PM deploys an app via these platforms, there’s no dashboard to see usage metrics (e.g. number of users, clicks, conversions). Any product analytics must be added manually to the generated app. For example, to get even basic traffic data, a PM would have to insert Google Analytics or a similar script into the app’s code. Lovable’s own help resources note this explicitly: “If you’re using Lovable… you need to add the Google Analytics tracking code manually… There is no direct integration.”. This means extra setup and technical steps that a PM must coordinate (likely needing a developer’s help if they are not code-savvy). The absence of integrated analytics is troublesome because one big reason to prototype quickly is to gather user feedback – but the tools won’t collect that for you. If a PM launched a Lovable-generated MVP to a test group, they would have to instrument it themselves or use external analytics services to learn anything about user behavior. This is doable, but adds overhead and requires familiarity with editing the code or using the platform’s limited interface to insert scripts.

• Limited Insight into AI’s Process: On the development side, PMs might also want analytics or feedback on how the AI agent is performing – for instance, metrics on how many attempts it took to get something right, or which parts of the code it changed most often. Such insights could help the PM identify risky areas of the app or gauge confidence in the AI-built components. However, neither Bolt.new nor Lovable surface much of this information. Apart from crude measures like tokens used or messages sent, there isn’t a rich log of the AI’s decision-making. In fact, as mentioned, Bolt.new didn’t even show diffs of code changes. This lack of transparency was frustrating enough that some users accused Bolt’s AI of churning through tokens just to appear busy: “optimized for appearance of activity rather than genuine problem-solving,” as one reviewer observed of the token consumption pattern. That suggests PMs get very little insight into whether the AI’s “work” is effective or wasteful, beyond watching the outcome. It’s essentially a black box. When things go wrong, the PM has to blindly trust the AI’s explanation or dive into the raw code – there’s no analytics to pinpoint, say, “20% of generation attempts failed due to X.”

• Progress Tracking and Version History: From a project management perspective, neither tool offers features to track progress over time. There’s no burn-down chart, no progress percentage, not even a simple checklist of completed features. The only timeline is the conversation history (for Lovable’s chat-based interface) or the sequence of prompts. And as noted earlier, Bolt.new’s history window is limited, meaning you can’t scroll back to the beginning of a long session. Without a reliable history or summary, a PM might lose track of what the AI has done. There’s also no concept of milestones or versions. If a PM wants to compare the current prototype to last week’s version, the tools don’t provide that capability (unless the PM manually saved a copy of the code). This lack of history or state management can make it harder to measure progress. For example, if the PM had an objective like “improve the app’s load time by 30%,” there’s no built-in metric or profiling tool in Bolt/Lovable to help measure that – the PM would need to export the app and use external analysis tools.

• User Feedback Loops: Gathering qualitative feedback (e.g. from test users or stakeholders) is outside the scope of these tools as well. A PM might have hoped for something like an easy way for testers to submit feedback from within the prototype or for the AI to suggest improvements based on user interactions, but features like that do not exist. Any feedback loop must be organized separately (surveys, manual testing sessions, etc.). Essentially, once the app is built and deployed, Bolt.new and Lovable step aside – they don’t help monitor how the app is received or performing. This is a classic gap between development and product management: the tools handled the former (to an extent), but provide nothing for the latter.

To illustrate, a PM at a startup might use Lovable to build a demo app for a pilot, but when presenting results to their team or investors, they’ll have to rely on anecdotes or external analytics to report usage because Lovable itself won’t show that data. If they want to track whether a recent change improved user engagement, they must instrument the app with analytics and maybe A/B testing logic themselves. For PMs used to more integrated platforms (even something like Webflow for websites has some form of stats, or Firebase for apps has analytics), the silence of Bolt/Lovable after deployment is notable.

In summary, the lack of analytics and tracking means PMs must revert to traditional methods to measure success. It’s a missed expectation – after using such an advanced AI tool to build the product, one might expect advanced AI help in analyzing it, but that’s not (yet) part of the package. As one guide said, if you want analytics with Lovable, you’ll need to do it the old-fashioned way because “GA is not integrated”. And when it comes to tracking development progress, the onus is entirely on the PM to manually maintain any project status outside the tool. This disconnect is a significant pain point for product managers trying to streamline their workflow from idea all the way to user feedback.

Conclusion: Comparative Perspective​

From real user stories and reviews, it’s clear that Bolt.new and Lovable each have strengths but also significant pain points for product managers. Both deliver impressively on their core promise – rapidly generating working app prototypes – which is why they’ve attracted thousands of users. Yet, when viewed through the lens of a PM who must not only build a product but also collaborate, plan, and iterate on it, these tools show similar limitations.

• Bolt.new tends to offer more flexibility (you can choose frameworks, tweak code more directly) and raw speed, but at the cost of higher maintenance. PMs without coding expertise can hit a wall when Bolt throws errors or requires manual fixes. Its token-based model and initially sparse integration features often led to frustration and extra steps. Bolt can be seen as a powerful but blunt instrument – great for a quick hack or technical user, less so for a polished team workflow.

• Lovable positions itself as the more user-friendly “AI full-stack engineer,” which translates into a somewhat smoother experience for non-engineers. It abstracts more of the rough edges (with built-in deployment, GitHub sync, etc.) and has a bias toward guiding the user with structured outputs (cleaner initial code, design integration). This means PMs generally “get further with Lovable” before needing developer intervention. However, Lovable shares many of Bolt’s core pain points: it’s not magic – users still encounter confusing AI behaviors, have to restart at times, and must leave the platform for anything beyond building the prototype. Moreover, Lovable’s additional features (like visual editing, or certain integrations) are still evolving and occasionally cumbersome in their own right (e.g. one user found Lovable’s deployment process more annoying than Bolt’s, despite it being one-click – possibly due to lack of customization or control).

In a comparative view, both tools are very similar in what they lack. They don’t replace the need for careful product management; they accelerate one facet of it (implementation) at the expense of creating new challenges in others (debugging, collaboration). For a product manager, using Bolt.new or Lovable is a bit like fast-forwarding to having an early version of your product – which is incredibly valuable – but then realizing you must slow down again to address all the details and processes that the tools didn’t cover.

To manage expectations, PMs have learned to use these AI tools as complements, not comprehensive solutions. As one Medium review wisely put it: these tools “rapidly transformed my concept into a functional app skeleton,” but you still “need more hands-on human supervision when adding more complexity”. The common pain points – UX issues, workflow gaps, integration needs, planning and analytics omissions – highlight that Bolt.new and Lovable are best suited for prototyping and exploration, rather than end-to-end product management. Knowing these limitations, a product manager can plan around them: enjoy the quick wins they provide, but be ready to bring in the usual tools and human expertise to refine and drive the product forward.

Sources:

• Real user discussions on Reddit, Product Hunt, and LinkedIn highlighting frustrations with Bolt.new and Lovable.
• Reviews and comments from G2 and Product Hunt comparing the two tools and listing likes/dislikes.
• Detailed blog reviews (NoCode MBA, Trickle, Fine.dev) analyzing feature limits, token usage, and integration issues.
• Official documentation and guides indicating lack of certain integrations (e.g. analytics) and the need for manual fixes.