# StoreReady > Which AI app builder ships an app that reaches Apple App Store submission on your own > developer account. Every claim carries the source it came from and the date it was read. > Where the sources do not settle a question the answer is "unknown" rather than a guess. ## Who publishes this StoreReady is built and run by Compound Labs (https://thecompound.tech). ## How to read a verdict - Ships. A documented path to a submitted binary on your own Apple Developer account. - Ships, with caveats. Reaches the App Store, but the last mile happens outside the tool, or a named App Store Review Guideline is in play. - No mobile binary. Does not produce something submittable to the App Store at all. - Unknown. No source found that settles it. Unproven, not failed. The guideline that decides most of this catalogue is 4.2.6: apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service are rejected unless submitted directly by the provider of the app content. It is a rule about whose developer account the binary goes up on, not about whether a model wrote the code. Nothing in the App Store Review Guidelines distinguishes AI written code from hand written code. ## Pages - https://storeready.thecompound.tech : the docket - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/pricing : what it costs - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/faq : the questions people ask - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/about : who publishes it - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/status : whether it is up and when it last published - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/security : what it stores and how to report a vulnerability - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/sources : every figure this site states, and where it was read - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/method : what counts as evidence and why some rows say unknown - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/api-docs : the read API, and how to take the whole corpus - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/changelog : every change that shipped, from this product's own commit history - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/privacy : what this site collects, which is almost nothing - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/terms : what a verdict is, and what it is not ## Answer pages - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/vs/rork-vs-vibecode : Rork vs Vibecode - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/rork-alternatives : Rork alternatives - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/ai-app-builder-for-ios : AI app builder for iOS ## Builders ### Rork : Ships, with caveats Produces a real Expo binary and markets App Store shipping as the headline outcome, and the export path means a failed one-click publish is recoverable rather than terminal. The caveat is that the strongest claims here are the vendor’s own marketing and third-party reviews rather than a submission-record document — and the Rork Max Swift path is new enough as of August 2026 that it has no review history to read. - Produces: React Native on Expo. A second product, Rork Max, launched February 2026 and generates native Swift for the Apple platforms instead. - Exports source: yes, Reported to sync to GitHub and export the React Native source at no cost, including as the fallback when the one-click publish fails. - Who submits: builder-assisted - Price: Read off rork.com/pricing in a browser on 2026-08-15: a $0 tier that is design mode only (35 design credits/month, max 5/day), Rork Pro at $20/mo for Expo, Android and web with 100 credits/month, and Rork Max at $200/mo for iOS, iPad and Apple Watch with 1,000 credits/month. The four-plan $25–$200 ladder a January third-party breakdown reported is no longer what the vendor publishes. - Guidelines in play: 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/rork ### Vibecode : Ships The clearest documented path in the catalogue. Vibecode’s own deployment page requires you to hold the $99/year Apple Developer Program membership and sign the agreements yourself, which is exactly the arrangement guideline 4.2.6 asks for — the app is submitted by the party whose content it is, not by the generator. It also ships a preflight check aimed at the mechanical rejection causes (icons, metadata, configuration). - Produces: React Native on Expo. Builds are compiled through Expo Launch rather than on your machine. - Exports source: unknown, The deployment documentation does not mention source export, a GitHub push, or code download. Treat code portability as unestablished until the vendor documents it. - Who submits: you-submit - Price: Plus is $20 /month, and that tier is the one carrying "App store submission". The figure is only readable in a rendered browser: the pricing page serves its plan grid client-side, so the delivered HTML carries the monthly/annual toggle and the wholesale-credit explanation and no tier figure at all. Read with a real browser profile on 2026-08-15. - Guidelines in play: 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/vibecode ### a0.dev : Unknown No document, listing or dated report was found that establishes what happens when an a0.dev app is submitted. The team is described as helping users get to the App Store, which is an intention rather than a record. This row stays unknown until there is something citable — a builder with no evidence is not the same as a builder with bad evidence, and the grid should not blur them. - Produces: React Native previewed through Expo Go. Native modules that are not bundled into the preview client will not run in preview. - Exports source: unknown, No source-export policy was found in material that could be read. Unestablished. - Who submits: builder-assisted - Price: Read off a0.dev/pricing in a browser on 2026-09-18, which is the only way to read it: a plain fetch returns 158 characters and the plan grid renders client-side. Two plans are published, Pro at $20/month with 100 credits per month and Max at $200/month with 1,250 credits per month. No free plan. The intermediate ladder this row carried until 2026-09-18, Pro 250 at $50 through Pro 5000 at $800, is no longer on the page, and Max is now stated as a monthly credit count rather than a daily limit. - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/a0-dev ### Replit Mobile : Ships Replit documents the arrangement that matters: it prepares the app and walks you through submission, but the Apple Developer account is yours and the binary goes through ordinary App Review. That keeps the submitter and the content provider the same party, which is the hinge guideline 4.2.6 turns on. The mobile product is new as of early 2026, so there is a documented path but not yet a long public record of outcomes. - Produces: React Native and Expo, one codebase for both platforms. Device testing goes through Expo Go via QR code. - Exports source: yes, The project is a normal repository on Replit and can be taken elsewhere. - Who submits: builder-assisted - Price: Read off replit.com/pricing in a browser on 2026-09-18: Core at $20/month, $18/month billed annually; Pro at $100/month, $90 annually; Enterprise at Custom. The page publishes no $0 plan. The free Starter tier this row carried until 2026-09-18 is gone from it, and what the page still calls free is a usage mode inside Core, "up to 30 hours of chat on free mode". Credit blocks are sold beside the plans at $90, $215, $425, $825 and $2,000 a month. The paid tiers are denominated in monthly credit, not in seats or apps. - Guidelines in play: 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/replit ### Bolt.new : Ships, with caveats Bolt’s own documentation is unusually plain about the shape of this: you download the code, open it in an editor, run `eas build --platform ios --auto-submit` yourself, then finish in App Store Connect. Nothing about that blocks review — the resulting binary is an ordinary Expo build submitted under your own account — but anyone expecting a button inside the product will not find one, and the last mile needs a working local toolchain. - Produces: React Native and Expo source. Bolt runs in a browser sandbox, so nothing native is compiled inside the product. - Exports source: yes, Downloading the code is not a bonus feature here — it is a required step, because the build cannot happen in the browser. - Who submits: you-submit - Price: Free tier at $0 (300K tokens daily, 1M monthly, Bolt branding), then Pro at $25/month billed monthly and Teams at $30 per member per month. Yearly billing is advertised as saving up to 28%. Note that the EAS build the last mile needs is billed separately by Expo. - Guidelines in play: 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/bolt-new ### Lovable : No mobile binary Not a mark against Lovable — it is a statement about one question it never set out to answer. Lovable’s own FAQ says it builds web applications and does not generate React Native. Reaching the App Store therefore means wrapping the web app with something like Capacitor, and a wrapped web app is precisely the shape guideline 4.2 was written to filter. If the app also sells subscriptions through Stripe, guideline 3.1.1 lands on top of that. If you want an iOS binary, start somewhere else. - Produces: Web applications, which can be made mobile-friendly. Lovable states plainly that it does not generate React Native projects. - Exports source: yes, Projects can be pushed to GitHub as ordinary web codebases. - Who submits: not-applicable - Price: Free at $0/month, then Pro at $25/month with 100 monthly credits. Both figures are readable only in a rendered browser — the delivered HTML contains the plan headings and no amount. Read with a real browser profile on 2026-08-15. - Guidelines in play: 4.2, 3.1.1 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/lovable ### FlutterFlow : Ships The most established row here by age. Flutter output is compiled native rather than wrapped web, so guideline 4.2 has nothing structural to catch, and the export path means you are never locked out of your own binary. The submission is made on your own Apple Developer account. The usual rejections reported against builders of this type are the ordinary ones — thin functionality, missing privacy policy, generic metadata — which are properties of the app rather than of the tool. - Produces: Flutter, compiled to genuinely native iOS and Android binaries. - Exports source: yes, Code export and a GitHub push are documented product features. Note that exported code does not carry FlutterFlow-hosted services with it. - Who submits: builder-assisted - Price: Free tier at $0 for building and testing, then Basic at $39/month — the tier that unlocks source-code and APK download. Growth is $80 for the first seat and $55 for the second; Business is $150 for the first seat and $85 for seats 2–5. Annual billing is advertised at roughly 25% off. - Guidelines in play: 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/flutterflow ### Adalo : Ships, with caveats Adalo apps do reach the App Store, and Adalo publishes its own guidance on the rejections its users hit — which is more transparency than most of this catalogue offers. The named causes are guideline 4.2 minimum functionality, a missing privacy policy link, and generic metadata. The caveat that matters is the absence of an export: if a submission stalls, you cannot take the binary elsewhere and finish it yourself. - Produces: React Native apps published to both stores. - Exports source: no, No source export. The app lives on the platform; leaving means rebuilding. - Who submits: builder-assisted - Price: A free plan builds and fully tests an app (unlimited test apps, up to 500 records each) but does not publish; store publishing starts at $36/month on Starter. Adalo states it charges no usage-based or per-action metering on top. The Apple Developer Program ($99/year) and Google Play registration ($25 once) are separate and unavoidable. - Guidelines in play: 4.2, 4.2.6 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/adalo ### Thunkable : Ships, with caveats Thunkable will publish to the App Store for you, which is convenient right up until it is the problem: a generation service submitting on a client’s behalf is the arrangement guideline 4.2.6 names directly. The sharper practical risk is reported continuity — apps are unpublished from the store when a subscription lapses, which makes your listing a function of your billing status. - Produces: Native builds produced by the platform. - Exports source: partial, Code export is limited and deep customisation is reported as difficult. - Who submits: builder-submits - Price: Free tier (2,000 AI tokens, 3 public projects, 5 screens each), then Accelerator at $18/month billed yearly or $19 billed monthly. Publishing a live app is not on either of those: the first tier carrying "1 Live Published App" is Builder at $37/month yearly, $59 monthly, and Advanced at $99 yearly / $189 monthly lifts the published-app cap. - Guidelines in play: 4.2.6, 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/thunkable ### Draftbit : Ships, with caveats Structurally the safest position on this grid: you leave with the React Native source and submit it yourself, so nothing about the tool is between you and review. The caveat is evidentiary rather than technical — the sources found were comparison articles rather than Draftbit’s own submission documentation, and no dated report of a submission outcome surfaced. - Produces: React Native, designed visually and exported as a real project. - Exports source: yes, Exporting the React Native source for custom development is the stated point of the product. - Who submits: you-submit - Price: A "Free Forever" tier at $0 (one sandbox at a time, 1-click publishing to the web), then Standard at $12/month, Pro at $24 and Team at $120. Editor seats are extra — $8/seat on Standard, $16 on Pro and Team. Yearly billing is advertised at 20% off. - Guidelines in play: 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/draftbit ### Median.co : Ships, with caveats This is the category guideline 4.2 exists to police, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. A wrapper can clear review — plenty have — but it clears on the strength of the native capability layered on top and the depth of the underlying product, not on the wrapping. If the binary is a web view and little else, "repackaged website" is the exact phrase in the rule. Treat this as a distribution route for a substantial existing product, not as a way to manufacture one. - Produces: A native shell around your live web app, with native additions such as push notifications bolted on. - Exports source: no, The wrapper is the product; there is no app source to take away. - Who submits: builder-assisted - Price: Not published for the entry tier. median.co answers a plain request for its pricing page with 403 and `cf-mitigated: challenge`, but the page itself is readable in a browser and publishes Business at $7,200/yr, with Enterprise at "contact us for pricing". The pricing page splits into Personal, Business and Organizations tabs and only the Business panel renders without a click, so the cheapest paid figure is still one nobody here has read. - Guidelines in play: 4.2, 4.2.6 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/median ### GoodBarber : Ships, with caveats Worth reading even if you never use it, because GoodBarber published the clearest vendor explanation of 4.2.6 anywhere: the developer account must belong to the app’s content creator, and the app has to add demonstrable value. The company describes running a review process to hold its own users to that. It is dated — January 2018 — but the rule it describes is still the rule on Apple’s page today. - Produces: Native app builds produced by the platform. - Exports source: no, No source export. - Who submits: builder-assisted - Price: No free tier: a 30-day trial with no card, then paid. Three product lines price separately, each "billed yearly": content and community apps from $30/month, eCommerce from $40/month, and the agency and reseller programme from $215/month. Read off goodbarber.com/pricing on 2026-09-18, where the figures are now served in dollars. The page states it prices in EUR, USD, GBP, CAD, MXN, SEK, DKK or NOK depending on the reader's location, so the currency on this row is the one a US reader is served. - Guidelines in play: 4.2.6, 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/goodbarber ### CatDoes : Ships, with caveats Exists because Bolt and its peers stop short of a signed binary, and it solves that specific problem. The caveat is 4.2.6 again: a service that builds and submits on a client’s behalf is the arrangement the rule names, so the account the binary is submitted under is the thing to get right. Note also that most published comparisons of this segment are written by companies in it, including this one — read them as vendor material. - Produces: Imports an existing React Native project by URL or GitHub, runs the EAS build, signs the binary and submits. - Exports source: unknown, Not established in material that could be read. - Who submits: builder-submits - Price: Free tier at $0 (25 credits, web deploy only, one public project), then Core at $17/month. iOS and Android deploys — the whole reason this row exists — first appear on Starter at $42/month. Above that: Plus $84, Pro $168 and Max $399, all denominated in monthly credits. Yearly billing is advertised at 16% off. - Guidelines in play: 4.2.6 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/catdoes ### Expo + EAS (hand-written) : Ships Included as the baseline the rest of the grid should be read against. Most of the AI builders in this catalogue are a chat interface over exactly this pipeline, which is why the honest answer to "does an AI-built app pass review" is usually "yes, because it is an ordinary Expo binary submitted under your own account." What varies between rows is not the output format — it is who holds the developer account, and whether you can still get to the code when the automated path fails. - Produces: React Native compiled by Expo Application Services into a signed binary, submitted with `eas submit`. - Exports source: yes, It is your repository from the first commit. - Who submits: you-submit - Price: Free tier at $0, capped at 15 Android and 15 iOS builds. Starter is $19/month and includes $45 of build credit; Production is $199/month with $225 of credit. Both are "+ usage" — past the included credit, builds are metered, so this is the one row on the grid whose real cost depends on how often you compile. - Guidelines in play: 4.2 - Full sources: https://storeready.thecompound.tech/builder/expo-eas ## Head to head ### Rork vs Vibecode Both compile React Native through Expo, so the output is not the deciding factor — the paperwork is. Vibecode documents the requirement that you hold the Apple Developer Program membership yourself, which is the arrangement 4.2.6 asks for, and ships a preflight check against the mechanical rejection causes. Rork is reported to let you export the source and push to GitHub free of charge, which matters most on the day the one-click publish fails and you need to finish the submission by hand. Pick Vibecode if you want the documented path; pick Rork if you want the escape hatch. Neither has a published record of review outcomes, and anyone claiming otherwise has not shown you one. https://storeready.thecompound.tech/vs/rork-vs-vibecode ### Rork vs a0.dev Not a close comparison on evidence. Rork has dated third-party coverage of its pricing, its output and its export path, plus explicit App Store marketing. For a0.dev, nothing was found that establishes what happens at submission — the team is described as helping users get released, which is an intention. That gap is the finding. a0.dev may well be fine; it simply has not been shown to be. https://storeready.thecompound.tech/vs/rork-vs-a0-dev ### Vibecode vs Replit Mobile The same shape from two directions. Both build React Native on Expo, both leave the Apple Developer account in your name, both put the binary through ordinary App Review. Replit gives you a real repository you can take anywhere, which Vibecode’s deployment docs do not mention. Vibecode gives you a preflight check aimed squarely at the rejections that are nobody’s fault but the metadata’s. Replit Mobile launched in early 2026 and Vibecode is not much older, so neither has the review history you would want. https://storeready.thecompound.tech/vs/vibecode-vs-replit ### Bolt.new vs Rork Bolt is honest that it stops at source code: its docs tell you to download the project and run `eas build --platform ios --auto-submit` yourself, because the browser sandbox cannot compile anything native. Rork aims at the whole path and markets App Store shipping as the outcome. If you have a Mac and a working toolchain, Bolt’s ending is not a limitation — it is the normal way apps get built. If you do not, Bolt will leave you holding a repository you cannot ship. https://storeready.thecompound.tech/vs/bolt-new-vs-rork ### Lovable vs Rork These are not competitors, and the most useful thing this page can tell you is to stop comparing them. Lovable’s own FAQ says it builds web applications and does not generate React Native — reaching the App Store means wrapping it with Capacitor, and a wrapped web app walks straight into guideline 4.2. Rork produces an Expo binary. If the deliverable is an iOS app, this comparison has one entrant. https://storeready.thecompound.tech/vs/lovable-vs-rork ### FlutterFlow vs Rork The generational comparison: a visual builder with years of App Store history against a chat interface with months of it. FlutterFlow compiles Flutter to native, documents code export and a GitHub push, and submits under your own account. Rork gets you to a first build far faster and also exports. Choose FlutterFlow when the app has to outlive the tool and you want a long public track record behind that bet; choose Rork when speed to a working binary is the point. https://storeready.thecompound.tech/vs/flutterflow-vs-rork ## Generated comparisons - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/bolt-new-vs-expo-eas : Bolt.new vs Expo + EAS - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/bolt-new-vs-flutterflow : Bolt.new vs FlutterFlow - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/bolt-new-vs-lovable : Bolt.new vs Lovable - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/flutterflow-vs-expo-eas : FlutterFlow vs Expo + EAS - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/lovable-vs-expo-eas : Lovable vs Expo + EAS - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/lovable-vs-flutterflow : Lovable vs FlutterFlow - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/replit-vs-bolt-new : Replit Mobile vs Bolt.new - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/replit-vs-expo-eas : Replit Mobile vs Expo + EAS - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/replit-vs-flutterflow : Replit Mobile vs FlutterFlow - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/replit-vs-lovable : Replit Mobile vs Lovable - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/rork-vs-expo-eas : Rork vs Expo + EAS - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/rork-vs-replit : Rork vs Replit Mobile - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/vibecode-vs-bolt-new : Vibecode vs Bolt.new - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/vibecode-vs-expo-eas : Vibecode vs Expo + EAS - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/vibecode-vs-flutterflow : Vibecode vs FlutterFlow - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/compare/vibecode-vs-lovable : Vibecode vs Lovable ## Machine readable - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/api/builders : every builder as JSON - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/api/builders/{slug} : one builder with its evidence and any App Store listings - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/api/matchups : the head to head pages - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/api/compare/{slug} : one head to head, hydrated - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/api/health : corpus size and when the sources were last verified - https://storeready.thecompound.tech/api/badge/{slug}.svg : the badge a maker can put on their own page ## Freshness The corpus was last re-read on 2026-09-12: 35 sources checked, 33 still resolving, 2 behind an interactive challenge, 0 broken. Every competitor figure on the answer pages has been re-checked against its own source on or since 2026-09-18. Last release 2026-09-13. 25 releases in the record at https://storeready.thecompound.tech/changelog. ## Method https://storeready.thecompound.tech/method : what counts as evidence, how vendor marketing is weighted against Apple's own guideline text, and why some rows say unknown.