Building a Fintech MVP in Days, not Weeks

To stress-test these platforms, we tried building key parts of a fintech-style web application — inspired by a real use case, the Modelist debt financing platform. This app includes:

• Role-based portals for borrowers and investors
• Document upload and data handling
• Payment logic (e.g., interest payouts)
• Admin dashboards
• 2FA and basic compliance support
• Mobile-responsive UI

We used real prompts derived from client calls, transcribed and summarized via Whisper and GPT-4o, and fed those into each platform to generate app logic and interfaces.

To ensure consistency, we used the same pipeline:

Client calls → Transcription → Summary prompt → Platform evaluation

Prompt generation:

• Transcribed real client conversations using Whisper.
• Summarized the transcriptions using OpenAI ChatGPT-4o.
• Generated development prompts to feed into each platform.

Execution:

• Entered prompts into each platform.
• Tracked: build time, manual effort, UI quality, functionality coverage.

Evaluation criteria:

• Time to working output
• Support for core features
• Usability for developers vs non-technical users
• Code portability and maintainability

Marblism

• Strengths: Full-stack output, good default structure, fast.
• Weaknesses: Overly complex code in some cases; lacks advanced security by default.
• Best for: MVP scaffolding when time-to-demo is critical.

v0 (Vercel)

• Strengths: Figma-to-code magic, high-quality UI, fast front-end workflows.
• Weaknesses: Needs backend pairing (e.g., Supabase). No security out of the box.
• Best for: Frontend-heavy projects with strong design involvement.

Bolt.new

• Strengths: Full control, live AI edits, backend logic, scalable to complex apps.
• Weaknesses: Requires dev knowledge, can burn tokens quickly.
• Best for: Teams wanting AI acceleration without sacrificing flexibility.

Glide

• Strengths: Very easy to use, fast internal tools, mobile-ready.
• Weaknesses: No code access, limited logic, unsuitable for fintech or production.
• Best for: Quick MVPs or non-critical tools by business users.

We set out to explore whether AI low-code platforms could turn high-level product requirements into working fintech prototypes — fast enough to keep up with real-world delivery pressure. Instead of spending weeks hand-coding flows like borrower onboarding or investor dashboards, we focused on speed to insight: Could we generate something interactive, testable, and stakeholder-ready in hours?

For teams juggling tight timelines and shifting priorities, that kind of acceleration is a competitive edge.

Key takeaways:

• Marblism excels in end-to-end speed.
• v0 creates the most polished UI, especially when starting from Figma.
• Bolt.new balances flexibility and power, ideal for devs.
• Glide is best for quick, simple mockups.

Feature coverage for Fintech MVP

Each platform we tested brings something different to the table — whether it’s raw speed, design fidelity, or backend flexibility. Your ideal pick depends on what stage you’re in and what trade-offs you’re willing to make. Here's how to decide.

Building fast?

If speed is the priority, each tool has its sweet spot:

• Marblism — Fastest full-stack output from a single prompt. Ideal for MVP scaffolding.
• v0 — Best for polished, design-driven frontends, especially when starting from Figma.
• Bolt.new — Offers full-stack flexibility and AI coding power — great if you have devs on hand.
• Glide — Stick to simple, internal-use apps only.

Going into production?

When regulatory compliance and maintainability matter:

• Use Marblism to bootstrap, then refine and secure the codebase manually.
• Pair v0 with a backend like Supabase for complete app delivery.
• Choose Bolt.new when you need custom logic, third-party integrations, or backend control.
• Avoid Glide for fintech or regulated apps — it lacks essential security, export, and compliance features.