mini vs. code generation tools
The gap in existing tools
AI coding assistants generate code. That part works. The problem for mobile teams is what happens after the code is written. Claude Code and Cursor produce code in an IDE. You prompt, it writes, you review in the editor. Neither can tell you whether that code works on a phone. They cannot build and deploy a mobile app, interact with a real screen, check whether a layout renders correctly on an iPhone 15 versus a Pixel 8, or verify that a scroll interaction behaves correctly. For web development, that verification step is fast — open a browser. For mobile, it means building the app (which can take 30 minutes or more on large projects), deploying to a device or emulator, and verifying manually. That feedback loop is the main bottleneck in mobile development, and existing AI tools do not address it. mini closes that loop. It writes code, deploys to a real device in the cloud, verifies the result, and keeps iterating until it passes. The pull request you receive has already been tested on physical hardware.mini vs. Claude Code / Cursor
Claude Code and Cursor are effective for what they do: code generation and editing inside a development environment, including individual functions, refactoring, and codebase questions. mini operates differently: Autonomous execution. Claude Code responds to prompts in a terminal. Cursor responds to prompts in an IDE. mini takes a ticket and completes it independently — no back-and-forth, no manual steps between writing and testing. You review the output when it is done. Real device testing. Claude Code can run test suites if they exist. It cannot deploy a mobile app to a phone and verify the UI. mini does this on every ticket: builds, deploys, interacts with the running app, iterates until correct. Ticket-to-PR workflow. Claude Code and Cursor operate at the code level. mini operates at the ticket level. It reads from Linear, Jira, or Notion; understands the task; references Figma if available; and delivers a scoped pull request. The unit of work is a ticket, not a prompt. Mobile-specific. mini is built exclusively for mobile. It understands iOS and Android frameworks, handles cross-platform work, and is designed for production codebases of any complexity. Claude Code and Cursor are general-purpose tools without mobile-specific device interaction. These tools are not mutually exclusive. Many teams use Cursor or Claude Code for day-to-day editing and mini for ticket-based feature delivery.mini vs. Replit / Lovable
Replit and Lovable are optimized for getting from zero to a working prototype quickly. If you need to validate a concept or build a demo, they are effective for that. mini is built for teams with a production app already in production. You have users, a backend, a CI/CD pipeline, and an established review process. You need to ship features in your existing codebase — not start over in a new environment. Replit and Lovable are prototyping tools. mini is an engineering tool. It works inside your repository, with your frameworks, within your existing workflow.When mini is the right fit
- App agencies and studios managing multiple client codebases simultaneously, where engineering time is the bottleneck on delivery
- Mobile product teams with a backlog that grows faster than it shrinks, and senior engineers occupied with architecture and infrastructure work
- Platform migrations — React Native to native, web to mobile, one codebase to two — where work needs to happen in parallel across repositories
- Teams where QA is a bottleneck and regressions are being caught in production rather than before release
When it is not
- Web applications. mini is built for mobile.
- Greenfield projects. If there is no existing codebase, a prototyping tool will be faster.
- Architectural or system design work. mini handles implementation. Strategy and system design remain with your team.