Tuesday, July 28
Tuesday, July 28
Tuesday, July 28
Medium · MuzliTech with Eldad
AI summary focused on the core points of the original article.
The experiment avoids favorable setup and exposes the initial judgment of all five tools as it is.
The test starts with an outdated mobile banking account screen
Weak balance hierarchy, a dense transaction list, no clear primary action, and dated styling become the redesign brief
Flowstep, Google Stitch, v0, Lovable, and Figma Make receive the same screen and prompt
Each tool is judged on its first generation without follow-up prompts or cherry-picking
The comparison covers information structure, contextual understanding, and visible errors alongside visual polish
Its result felt less like the prettiest screen and more like a redesign that understood the product context and could move into the next stage.
It prioritizes the balance and places transfer and add-money actions within thumb reach
A next-bill date and amount, neither requested in the prompt, add useful financial context
Transactions are rebuilt with category icons, cleaned-up merchant names, and color-coded amounts
Editing and handoff continue in the same workflow after the first generation
Multiple layout variants, direct editing, real-time collaboration, and editable Figma layers are supported
React, TypeScript, and Tailwind export is paired with MCP connections for Cursor, Claude Code, and Windsurf
The strengths split depending on whether the next step is a design file, production code, or a working application.
Google Stitch produces a solid draft with a dark theme and transactions grouped by date
It preserves the original content model well but adds less new UX reasoning and has free-tier screen limits
v0 is the most engineering-friendly, with income and spending summaries plus clear component boundaries
It moves naturally into React code but relies on a familiar and somewhat generic fintech dashboard pattern
Lovable adds useful context such as a 30-day spending summary, but its bottom navigation overflows the viewport
It suits fast working-app prototypes, provided that visual and responsive QA follow
Figma Make preserves the existing brand and functionality most faithfully
It fits a Figma-centered redesign workflow, though it does less to reinterpret what users need
The lasting criteria are the cost of revision and how the output connects to the team workflow.
A practical comparison should cover context fit, editability, responsive reliability, and handoff
Flowstep favors collaboration and engineering delivery, v0 favors the codebase, while Stitch and Figma Make favor quick exploration
The author’s overall verdict places Flowstep closest to a screen that could actually ship
Its prompt-beyond UX reasoning works together with a direct editing and code-delivery path
A single-prompt result is a signal for narrowing candidates, not a final ranking
Screen complexity and iteration change the outcome, so the tools still need to be tested on your own product screens
Holding every AI design tool to the same legacy screen makes the real difference less about visual taste and more about product reasoning and the path into further editing.
Good time to read
When you want to compare AI UI tools against a realistic redesign brief
When you need to prioritize Figma editing, code generation, or team collaboration
Key takeaways
Evaluate UX reasoning, editability, responsive errors, and handoff paths alongside visual polish.
A first generation is better treated as a shortlist signal than as the final answer for choosing a tool.