Vibe-coding vs. low-code: what actually sticks in production

Two years ago, low-code was the answer to everything. Now vibe-coding is the new promise: describe what you want, and an AI writes the code for you. Both offer the same headline: less time between idea and working product, lower costs, fewer dependencies on developers.

At Livewall, we work with both. We use vibe-coding for fast exploration and rapid prototyping. We know low-code platforms from clients who hit a wall halfway through. And we build the production-grade platforms that have to carry the weight after that.

The honest conclusion: both approaches have a legitimate place. But they fail in completely different ways. Not knowing that difference is how you end up choosing wrong.

What vibe-coding actually is

Vibe-coding is a term Andrej Karpathy popularised for generating code through an AI model without fully understanding or reviewing the output. You describe what you want, the AI generates code, and you correct based on what you see in the browser. The vibe is right or it is not.

It works surprisingly well for a specific category of work: exploration, building interfaces that need to look right quickly, scripts that run once, prototypes you want to show stakeholders. The speed is real. What normally takes two days in a sprint sometimes lands in two hours.

The downside is equally real. Code that an AI generates is not automatically bad, but it is not automatically good either. Without a developer consciously reviewing the output, patterns creep in that cause problems later: unnecessary dependencies, insecure defaults, logic that holds at low user counts but breaks at scale. Vibe-coding increases output per unit of time. It also increases the chance of technical debt if nobody is watching the quality.

What low-code actually does

Low-code platforms like Bubble, Webflow, Retool, or OutSystems offer a different promise: visual building within a defined system. You do not need to write code, but you work within the constraints the platform sets.

For the right use case that is a genuine advantage. Internal tools, dashboards, form logic, simple workflows: low-code delivers here quickly and reliably. The platform takes on infrastructure responsibility. Hosting, updates, baseline security: that is all included.

Where low-code structurally runs into its limits is customisation. The moment a client wants something outside the platform's templates, you become dependent on workarounds and custom code blocks that pierce the visual layer. At that point you effectively have the worst of both worlds: you are locked into the platform's constraints while also writing code that is hard to maintain.

We see this pattern with clients who started on a low-code platform and hit a wall after twelve months: the roadmap demands things the platform cannot handle, but the migration costs have become significant. That lock-in is the real risk factor, not the speed with which you start.

The real comparison: where does each approach break?

Vibe-coding breaks at scale and maintenance. A prototype that excites a stakeholder is not the same as a system that handles 50,000 users. Vibe-coding output often lacks test coverage, error handling, and the architectural decisions you need when a product grows. If nobody has consciously reviewed the generated code, it also becomes difficult to change later.

Low-code breaks at differentiation. If your platform needs to do what other platforms already do, low-code is fine. The moment you want to build something genuinely different, you run into the limits of the system. Those limits are not random: they sit exactly where you want to stand out.

The projects that have come undone the most dramatically are those where one of these approaches was used as a substitute for product strategy. Being able to build fast is valuable. But if you do not know what you are building and for whom, speed just amplifies the damage.

This is exactly why our MVP development approach starts with a sharp definition phase. Not as a bureaucratic step, but as protection against building in the wrong direction.

Where vibe-coding genuinely works

We actively use vibe-coding at Livewall, but in a specific way. For rapid prototyping and exploration it is a strong tool: quickly building an interface to test an idea, visualising a workflow for a client conversation, sketching a first user flow to discuss internally.

The key is that output is always reviewed by a senior developer before it moves deeper into the product. AI generates, people judge. Without that review step, vibe-coding is risky. With that review step, it genuinely accelerates the early phases of a project in ways that show up directly in the timeline.

Our work with Mach8, our sister label for AI automation, reinforces this. Mach8 builds AI workflows that take repetitive work out of the development process. Livewall maintains product quality and architecture. The distinction between generating and judging is what makes the difference.

For KLM, this principle operates at the campaign level: AI generates, people guard brand discipline. The same logic applies to code.

Where low-code genuinely works

Low-code is strong for internal tools and time-bound applications with a contained scope. If you want to build a dashboard for an internal team, digitise a form workflow, or launch a campaign page without months of development: low-code delivers.

The winning combination we apply regularly: low-code or a headless CMS for the layers that are generic, custom tooling for the parts that make the product actually distinctive. Lefboom is an example of this: a sustainability rewards platform that combines standard infrastructure with custom-built reward logic that defines what makes the platform different.

The platform layer is generic. The logic that makes it work for Lefboom's specific approach is custom. Making that distinction deliberately at the start of a project avoids a restart later.

The decision you need to make at the start

The question is not: vibe-coding or low-code? The question is: what is the nature of this product, and what will it demand in twelve months?

If the answer is: validating an assumption, temporary internal use, or a prototype to build buy-in, then vibe-coding or low-code are perfectly reasonable choices. They are fast, relatively inexpensive, and good enough for that use case.

If the answer is: a platform that scales, a product with its own logic, a system that will be developed for years, then a custom web application is almost always the better investment. Not because custom is faster or cheaper in the early phase, but because you will not hit a wall in the limits of a platform you do not fully control.

At Livewall, our working rule is: start as simple as the goal allows, but build in a way that does not block expansion. That line determines in the first conversations whether vibe-coding, low-code, or custom development is the right approach.

A sharp digital strategy at the start of a project is not a luxury. It is how you avoid starting over after a year.