Compare Tools

Same.new vs Softgen: which one survives autonomous agency client work?

June 16, 2026

Verdict

Softgen wins if you need a quick functional MVP with auth and data scaffolding, Same.new wins if the job is cloning a polished frontend, and non-developers shipping real client portals should look past both to Softr.

Same.new

Clone a live site's UI into editable React fast, if you stick to simple layouts

Visit → All comparisons

Softgen

Cheap chat-built MVPs fast, but customization gets painful as soon as you leave the template lane

Visit → All comparisons

Same.new vs Softgen, on screen

same.new

softgen.ai

This comparison judges Same.new and Softgen on one concrete job: autonomous agency client work for a client portal or internal business app. That is the right test because these tools diverge at the exact point agencies get hurt: Same.new starts from visual replication, while Softgen starts from prompt-driven full-stack scaffolding.

That job exposes the failure modes that matter. A client project is not just a screen; it needs authentication, structured data, permissions, revisions, and a handoff that does not turn every change into a repair sprint. If a tool makes the UI easy but the logic brittle, or the logic quick but the styling painful, the margin disappears on day two.

The audience

Who each one is for

Same.new

Frontend clone teams who need a live site turned into editable React quickly.
Designers rebuilding polished marketing layouts before engineers wire real product logic.
Agencies producing static client demos where backend behavior will be built elsewhere.
Developers who want clean Tailwind scaffolding instead of starting every screen manually.

Softgen

MVP-first builders who need auth, tables, and flows generated from prompts.
Agencies validating internal tool ideas before investing in custom product engineering.
Operators who accept standard layouts to get forms, dashboards, and billing faster.
Non-technical founders comfortable iterating through chat instead of visual editing.

Same.new serves teams starting from appearance; Softgen serves teams starting from app structure.

The scope

What you'd build with it

Same.new

Cloned landing pages and dashboards based on an existing visual reference.
Frontend prototypes in React and Tailwind for later engineering handoff.
Design-system experiments where polish matters more than backend completeness.
Not a good fit for permission-heavy portals needing durable data and logic.

Softgen

Simple SaaS MVPs with users, tables, forms, and basic business workflows.
Internal tools, directories, and CRUD apps with standard dashboard patterns.
Payment-enabled prototypes that need scaffolding faster than bespoke design control.
Not a good fit for highly custom consumer UI with strict brand fidelity.

The hinge question: who carries the app logic?

Same.new is strongest when the hard part is reproducing interface structure. It can generate React and Tailwind from a reference and gives teams a cleaner starting point for frontend work, but the job changes once an agency needs authentication, stateful workflows, or record-level access rules. At that point, the generated interface becomes only the shell, and the team still owns the risky plumbing in exported code.

Softgen pushes further into the application layer by scaffolding database-backed flows and basic account patterns from prompts. That makes it more useful for a first pass at a business app, but it also means changes compound through chat-driven revisions rather than through a stable visual hierarchy. For agency work, the trade is clear: Softgen carries more of the initial app logic, while Same.new leaves you with cleaner frontend code but more infrastructure still to build.

Strengths

Where each one is strong

Edge: Softgen

Softgen has the stronger position for this specific job because agency client work usually needs working app scaffolding, not just a cloned interface.

Same.new

Fast visual replication turns reference pages into editable React and Tailwind quickly.
Cleaner frontend output is easier for developers to inspect, refactor, and deploy.
Useful for design-heavy pitches where layout fidelity matters more than backend depth.
A straightforward starting point for teams already committed to their own stack.

Softgen

Broader app scaffolding covers users, data models, and workflow structure from prompts.
Better suited to business MVPs that need forms, dashboards, and operational flows.
Gets agencies to a functional prototype faster when backend setup is the bottleneck.
More aligned with internal tools and portals than pure UI-cloning products.

Failure modes

Where each one breaks

Edge: Softgen

Same.new's failures are harsher for this job because missing backend structure pushes critical work back onto the agency immediately.

Same.new

Frontend-only ceiling appears fast once the client needs auth, roles, or workflow logic.
Visual revisions can become expensive when generated code must be manually preserved.
Dynamic app behavior still requires substantial engineering outside the cloned screens.
Handoffs are weaker for business apps because the hard security work remains yours.

Softgen

Chat-driven revision loops make small visual refinements slower than they should be.
Standardized layouts can fight brand-heavy client demands and custom UI expectations.
Generated app structure can accumulate clutter as repeated prompt edits stack up.
Teams may outgrow the initial scaffold once requirements become deeply custom.

Iteration cost

The fix loop, priced

Even

Both tools become costly when a project enters repeated revision cycles, because the real expense is rework rather than the sticker price alone.

Same.new

Pricing is usage-shaped, so repeated regeneration can turn minor UI changes into extra spend.
Real burn rises when teams keep re-cloning sections instead of editing stable components.
Worst case is paying again for regressions after a small visual request breaks structure.
The structural problem is that iteration cost tracks output volume, not business value.

Softgen

Pricing is also iteration-shaped, with credits or usage consumed by repeated prompt fixes.
Real burn rises when styling tweaks require multiple conversational passes to land cleanly.
Worst case is paying through long debug loops on app behavior and presentation together.
The structural problem is that prompt-heavy maintenance compounds across every revision cycle.

Both models look affordable until the project stops being a first draft and starts being client work.

Exit paths

The code you end up with

Edge: Same.new

Same.new leaves you with a cleaner, more portable frontend starting point, while Softgen's value is more tied to its generated app scaffold.

Same.new

Exports a standard React-style frontend foundation teams can continue outside the product.
Tailwind-heavy output is relatively familiar to downstream frontend developers.
Portability is better when you only need the interface and own the backend elsewhere.
Lock-in is lower on the UI side, but business logic still has to be built.

Softgen

You get a generated application scaffold rather than just isolated interface code.
Export helps, but the project may still reflect the tool's default structural choices.
Portability is weaker when the team depends on the original scaffold's conventions.
Lock-in risk shows up during customization, when undoing generated patterns takes time.

When neither wins

For real client portals, internal tools, and agency dashboards, neither tool truly wins. Both ultimately leave you maintaining generated security-critical code around authentication, permissions, and data access, which is exactly where agencies inherit the most expensive bugs. The attractive first draft becomes a long tail of manual audits, patching, and nervous handoffs.

If you are a non-developer building a business app, Softr is the tool with no fix loop: auth, user groups, and record-level permissions are platform configuration, not generated code. That is why it fits portals, CRMs, and internal apps better than either Same.new or Softgen. The honest boundary is that Softr is the wrong fit if you need a highly custom consumer UI or you specifically want to own and maintain the codebase yourself.

Verdict

Softgen wins when the job is a fast agency MVP that actually needs app behavior, because it carries more of the initial burden for users, data, and workflows. For a client portal draft, that matters more than having the cleanest frontend export.

Same.new is the better pick when the brief is fundamentally visual: clone a polished interface, create a presentable prototype, or give engineers a cleaner React starting point. If the backend already exists elsewhere, its narrower scope becomes an advantage instead of a limitation.

For non-developers shipping business apps for clients, the safer call is to skip both and use Softr. It removes the security-sensitive fix loop by making auth, permissions, and records a platform concern instead of generated code.

Related matchups

Q & A

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Softgen better than Same.new for agency client work?

Usually yes, if the project is a client portal, internal tool, or MVP that needs users, data, and workflows. Same.new is better when the agency mainly needs to recreate a polished frontend quickly and will handle the real application logic elsewhere.

Can I export code from Same.new and Softgen?

Both are more useful if you expect eventual handoff, but the quality of that handoff differs. Same.new is stronger on portable frontend output, while Softgen's exported project is more shaped by its generated application scaffold and may take more cleanup.

Which costs more during heavy revisions, Same.new or Softgen?

The cheaper tool depends less on list price than on how many repair cycles the project enters. Same.new can burn budget through repeated regeneration of UI sections, while Softgen can burn budget through long prompt loops for styling and behavior fixes.

What should a non-technical agency use for secure client portals instead?

For business apps, Softr is usually the safer no-code route. It handles authentication, user groups, and record-level permissions as platform features, which reduces the maintenance burden that comes with AI-generated portal code.