What does Softgen actually build, and on what?
A Next.js app on Supabase. Softgen describes itself as building “full-stack web apps from your plain English instructions”, starting “with a Next.js boilerplate” and customising frontend, backend and integrations from there. The database is managed Supabase by default, with an explicit route out: “Connect your own Supabase and Vercel and own every layer of the stack”, and the changelog records that you can “connect your own Supabase instance and migrate in or out”. Around that sit one-click integrations for Stripe, Resend and a long list of analytics and support tools. The claim that Softgen output is Firebase-shaped, or that swapping the data layer means rewriting the app, does not survive contact with Softgen's current pages — it is standard Next.js, and Softgen says you can open it “in Cursor, VS Code, or anything else”.
How does code ownership compare?
This is where the two products are closest, and where an honest page has to give Softgen the stronger hand. Softgen's line is “Every project lives in a real GitHub repo you own. Import existing repos, branch, merge.” Its changelog documents importing public repositories and then private ones over OAuth, and its FAQ says you get full access to the repository and own the code. That is a two-way relationship with GitHub. Buildra mirrors every commit its agent makes out to a GitHub repository you own, and the source downloads as a .tar.gz on the free tier, and a project can start from a repository you already have on GitHub — but the mirror runs one direction only, so a push you make on GitHub does not come back into Buildra, and Buildra does not open branches or pull requests or run CI for you. If branch-and-merge with the builder still in the loop is what you are after, Softgen is the product that does it.
Who runs the infrastructure your app lands on?
Softgen hands it to you, deliberately. “Deploy to your own Vercel account. Your domain, your SSL, your uptime. No Softgen middleman”, and its FAQ says outright that “Hosting isn't included”, with step-by-step guidance to deploy the frontend on Vercel and the backend on Supabase. The upside is on the same page: cancel and, in Softgen's words, your app keeps running, because nothing about it depends on Softgen staying up. The cost is two more accounts to open and two more bills to watch before anything is live. Buildra takes the other side: the app publishes to a buildra.page address from the same screen, and there is nothing to set up first — which also means the running app is on Buildra's side of the line rather than yours. Neither is the right answer in general. If you already have a Vercel account, Softgen's shape costs you nothing. If you do not, it is real work ahead of the first live URL.
How does pricing compare between Buildra and Softgen?
Softgen starts a free trial with no card — “Free trial credits, no card needed” — but the same sentence says to “Upgrade to Starter when you want GitHub, publishing, and full model choice”, so the trial is an evaluation, not a free tier you ship from. Starter is $25 a month for 500 credits, Pro is $49 for 1,500, and no annual rate is published. Credits “never expire while subscribed” and roll over on Pro, which is unusually generous in this category, and on Pro the owner pays for collaborators rather than every seat. Buildra Free is 5 credits a day, up to 25 a month, across up to 3 projects, with the source download and the GitHub mirror there from the start; the paid plans run from Starter at $25 a month for 100 credits to Pro from $100 for 400, with a year costing ten months. Buildra is cheaper to start and Softgen's credits last longer once you are paying. Buildra offers two modes rather than a model menu — Standard on every plan and Max on Builder and Pro — where Softgen sells model choice as a headline feature, twelve or more, switchable per task.