Bolt.new vs Replit

Both give beginners an autonomous agent that builds from a prompt, and both support Figma or screenshot import to start from a real design. Neither publishes element-level, click-to-edit fixing for non-coders, so that question stays open on both sides. Bolt.new's free plan caps out at 300,000 tokens per day and 1,000,000 tokens per month, a fixed budget to track, while Replit's free Starter plan uses a daily allowance that resets without a published number. Once paying, Replit is cheaper at $20/mo against Bolt.new's $25/mo. With the two most decisive capabilities matched and pricing cutting in opposite directions, this stays genuinely close.

On the hard filter, the two are matched: both hand over a full project on code export and both offer bidirectional GitHub sync, and both let you self-hostself-host - Run the software on your own servers instead of the vendor’s cloud. the output. Where they split is the backend underneath that exported code. Bolt.new wires in Supabase, a standard external Postgres service you own and can take anywhere, while Replit ships a built-in platform database, convenient but tied to staying on the platform. For an engineer who wants the agent to scaffold fast and then step aside, owning the backend outside the vendor's walls is the more get-out-of-the-way setup. Replit does not publish a public API for scripting the workflow further, and Bolt.new leaves that unaddressed too, so it does not tip the balance either way.

Bolt.new limits its no-charge tier to 300,000 tokens per day and 1,000,000 tokens per month, a number you can plan around. Replit's no-charge Starter tier instead uses a daily agent allowance that resets, with no published figure attached. Once you subscribe, Replit costs $20 per month, Bolt.new costs $25 per month, and Replit drops to $17 per month if billed yearly. Bolt.new keeps custom domains behind its Pro tier, while Replit does not restrict custom domains that way. Both tools carry unused credits into the next period. Since a clear usage number for evaluating the product before paying matters most, Bolt.new's stated cap wins the comparison despite Replit's lower subscription price.

An ops team building an internal dashboard wants a real data backend and gated auth without extra setup, and Replit leads on both. Its backend model is a built-in managed PostgreSQL database ready out of the box, while Bolt.new relies on bringing your own Supabase project, an extra service to provision before the data layer exists. Replit also ships auth built in, while Bolt.new does not build auth in at all. Single sign-on is restricted to an Enterprise plan on both tools, so that is a wash, and both support multiplayer collaboration. With the built-in database and native auth both landing in Replit's favor, and nothing on Bolt.new's side to offset them for this crowd, Replit is the stronger pick for internal tooling.

Neither tool ships a truly native mobile build, but the two are not even on this front. Replit publishes a mobile output path, a progressive web app that installs on a phone, while Bolt.new lists no mobile output at all and describes its output stack as full-stack JS/TS web projects, meaning a browser tab is the whole story. Replit's output stack is also described as polyglot, spanning 50 plus languages and frameworks, against Bolt.new's web-only scope, and its backend is a built-in managed database rather than a bring-your-own Supabase project to wire up first. A PWA still falls short of a real native app, so this is not a strong win, but having any mobile-facing output beats having none.

Someone who wants to run the builder itself locally, on their own license terms and their own API keys, needs answers on offline operation, licensing, and bring-your-own-key billing, and neither tool publishes any of that here. Both are cloud services with no stated local-first mode, no license terms for self-hostingself-host - Run the software on your own servers instead of the vendor’s cloud. the builder, and no BYO API key option on record. The only point either tool addresses is that the generated output can be self-hosted once built, and both answer yes to that in the same way, so it does not separate them either. Since the questions that actually decide this use case, running the platform itself outside the vendor's cloud, go unanswered by both, there is no basis to prefer one over the other here.

A designer moving from a Figma file or screenshot to a working front end cares most about import fidelity, and both tools match here: each supports Figma and screenshot import as a verified capability, with nothing in their published details separating one import path from the other. Neither publishes details on click-to-tweak, element-level editing after the import lands, so the polish question that would normally break a tie stays open for both. The remaining differences, a JS/TS web output stack for Bolt.new against a polyglot, 50-plus-framework stack for Replit, plus matching support for collaboration and versioning with rollback on both sides, do not point toward either tool being the stronger design-to-code path. With the two things that matter most here running even, this one stays a genuine tie.