Vibe Coding Platform Security Comparison
Every vibe coding platform ranked on security. Lovable, Bolt, Cursor, Windsurf, Replit, v0, Firebase Studio, Devin, Trae, and Tempo Labs compared across five security dimensions.
We evaluated each platform's default security posture: how the generated applications handle database security, secret management, authentication, security headers, and deployment. These scores reflect out-of-the-box behavior without manual security hardening.
Check how your app scores regardless of which platform built it
Overall Security Ranking
| # | Platform | Type | Tier | Score | DB | Secrets | Auth | Headers | Deploy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cursor | AI Code Editor | A | 3.8 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| 2 | Windsurf | AI Code Editor | A | 3.6 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| 3 | GitHub Copilot | AI Code Assistant | B | 3.4 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 |
| 4 | v0 | AI UI Generator | B | 3.2 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 |
| 5 | Trae | AI Code Editor | B | 3.0 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 |
| 6 | Lovable | Full-Stack AI Builder | C | 2.8 | 2/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 4/5 |
| 7 | Devin | AI Software Engineer | C | 2.8 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 4/5 |
| 8 | Tempo Labs | AI React Builder | C | 2.8 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 3/5 |
| 9 | Bolt.new | Full-Stack AI Builder | C | 2.6 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 4/5 |
| 10 | Firebase Studio | Google AI Builder | C | 2.6 | 2/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 3/5 |
| 11 | Replit Agent | AI Coding Agent | D | 2.4 | 2/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 3/5 |
Scores represent default security behavior without manual hardening. Scale: 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Overall score is the average of all five dimensions.
Scoring Methodology
Each platform was evaluated by generating a standard application (user authentication, data CRUD, file upload) using the platform's default workflow and examining the security of the resulting code and deployment without any manual security hardening. The scoring reflects what a developer would get “out of the box.”
Database Security (DB)
- 5: RLS/rules enabled by default with proper policies
- 4: Developer controls DB; no platform-level risk
- 3: DB configured but security needs manual setup
- 2: DB deployed without security; easy to misconfigure
- 1: DB publicly accessible by default
Secret Management
- 5: All secrets in env vars; secret scanning included
- 4: Env vars used consistently; no hardcoding
- 3: Mostly uses env vars; some hardcoding patterns
- 2: Frequently hardcodes credentials in source
- 1: Secrets exposed in public code by default
Authentication Defaults
- 5: Server-side auth + authorization generated
- 4: Auth provider integrated; basic server checks
- 3: Auth included but authorization gaps
- 2: Client-side auth; missing server verification
- 1: No authentication generated
Security Headers
- 5: CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, etc. configured
- 4: Most headers set via framework/platform defaults
- 3: Some headers present; manual config needed
- 2: Headers mostly missing; manual setup required
- 1: No security headers configured
Deployment Security
- 5: HTTPS enforced, security checks in deploy pipeline
- 4: HTTPS enabled; standard platform security
- 3: HTTPS available; some platform protections
- 2: Basic hosting; limited protections
- 1: Insecure defaults; manual HTTPS setup
Tier Classification
- A (3.5+): Good default security posture
- B (3.0-3.4): Moderate; key areas need attention
- C (2.5-2.9): Significant gaps; review essential
- D (below 2.5): Critical issues; extensive hardening needed
Detailed Platform Security Profiles
Cursor
Tier AAI Code Editor
Cursor's hands-off approach to infrastructure means fewer platform-level misconfigurations. Security depends on developer knowledge.
Windsurf
Tier AAI Code Editor
Similar to Cursor in approach. Had a notable MCP server vulnerability. Generated code quality varies.
GitHub Copilot
Tier BAI Code Assistant
Mature tool with improving security awareness, but ~40% of suggestions contain vulnerabilities per academic research.
v0
Tier BAI UI Generator
Smaller security surface due to frontend focus, but client-side auth patterns are common. Benefits from Vercel's deploy security.
Trae
Tier BAI Code Editor
ByteDance's AI code editor. Similar security profile to other code editors - developer bears most security responsibility.
Lovable
Tier CFull-Stack AI Builder
Most popular full-stack vibe coding tool. CVE-2025-48757 highlighted RLS issues. Security has improved but remains inconsistent.
Devin
Tier CAI Software Engineer
Autonomous agent approach means less developer oversight during generation. Security review after generation is critical.
Tempo Labs
Tier CAI React Builder
React-focused builder. Security patterns similar to other AI frontend tools. Generated auth needs server-side reinforcement.
Bolt.new
Tier CFull-Stack AI Builder
Fast full-stack generation but credential exposure has been a recurring issue. Improving over time.
Firebase Studio
Tier CGoogle AI Builder
Google's entry to vibe coding. Firebase security model is sound but generated rules need review.
Replit Agent
Tier DAI Coding Agent
Public-by-default Repls combined with Agent's credential hardcoding create unique risks. Secrets management is the weakest area.
Key Security Insights
Code Editors vs Full-Stack Builders
AI code editors (Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, Trae) consistently score higher on security than full-stack builders (Lovable, Bolt, Replit Agent). This is not because they generate more secure code, but because they do not manage infrastructure. When the developer controls the database, deployment, and configuration, there are fewer platform-level misconfigurations. The trade-off is that the developer must know how to secure these components themselves.
Database Security Is the Biggest Differentiator
The most impactful security dimension is database security. Full-stack platforms that deploy databases without proper access controls create the highest-severity vulnerabilities. A missing RLS policy on a Supabase table or permissive Firebase rules can expose an entire user database. This is why Lovable, Bolt, and Replit Agent have lower overall scores: they make decisions about database security that have critical consequences when done incorrectly.
No Platform Scores 5/5 on Authentication
No vibe coding platform consistently generates correct authorization logic. Authentication (verifying identity) is handled reasonably well by platforms that integrate with Supabase Auth or Firebase Auth. Authorization (verifying permissions) is consistently missing or incomplete across all platforms. This is because authorization is business-logic specific. The AI cannot know that “only the post author should be able to edit their post” unless explicitly told, and even then, the implementation is often incomplete.
Security Headers Are Universally Neglected
Across all platforms, security header configuration is one of the weakest areas. Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and Permissions-Policy are rarely configured by any vibe coding tool. Platforms that deploy to Vercel benefit from some default headers, but most other platforms leave headers entirely unconfigured. This is a quick win: adding security headers is straightforward and VAS checks for all of them.
Choosing a Platform Based on Security
If Security Is Your Top Priority
Use a code editor (Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot) with your own infrastructure. You control the database, deployment, and security configuration. This requires more knowledge but gives you full control over security decisions.
If Speed Is Your Priority (With Security Review)
Use a full-stack builder (Lovable, Bolt) for rapid generation, but budget time for security review before launch. Enable RLS, review auth logic, move secrets to env vars, and run a security scan.
What to Avoid
Do not use any platform to generate and deploy applications handling sensitive data (health, financial, personal) without thorough security review. Do not trust that any AI tool will configure database security correctly. Do not skip security scanning because the app “looks right.”
Scan Your App, Regardless of Platform
VAS works with every vibe coding platform. Whether you built with Lovable, Bolt, Cursor, or any other tool, get a comprehensive security report covering all the issues identified in this comparison.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which vibe coding platform is the most secure?
Based on our analysis, Cursor ranks highest because it does not manage infrastructure directly - the developer controls their own security stack. Among full-stack platforms that generate complete applications, Lovable and Bolt have improved but still commonly produce applications with security issues. No vibe coding platform generates production-ready secure applications by default.
Why do all vibe coding platforms have security issues?
They optimize for speed and functionality, not security. Security is contextual and depends on your application's specific requirements. Secure defaults often make development harder, so platforms prioritize developer experience. The AI models were trained on both secure and insecure patterns, and authorization logic is business-specific and cannot be generated from generic prompts.
Should I avoid vibe coding platforms for production applications?
No. Vibe coding platforms are excellent for rapidly building production applications, but treat them as development accelerators, not as substitutes for security review. Build fast, then review auth code, enable database security, move secrets to env vars, and run a security scan before accepting user data.
How are the security scores calculated?
Each platform is scored 1-5 on five dimensions: Default Database Security, Secret Management, Authentication Defaults, Security Header Configuration, and Deployment Security. Scores reflect out-of-the-box behavior without manual security hardening. The overall score is the average of all five dimensions.
Does Cursor generate more secure code than Lovable?
They have different risk profiles. Cursor does not manage databases or deployment, so fewer platform-level misconfigurations occur, but the developer must secure their own infrastructure. Lovable generates complete applications with Supabase backends, which creates more potential for critical misconfigurations like disabled RLS but also provides a more complete starting point.
What is the biggest security difference between vibe coding platforms?
How platforms handle database security defaults is the biggest differentiator. Full-stack platforms (Lovable, Bolt) must configure RLS/rules correctly. Code editors (Cursor, Windsurf) leave this to the developer. The second biggest difference is secret management - whether credentials end up hardcoded in source files or properly stored in environment variables.
Platform-Specific Security Guides
Last updated: February 2026. Scores are reviewed and updated quarterly as platforms evolve.