Bubble

Name: Bubble
Brand: Bubble

Vibe code without the code to launch real apps, not prototypes.

Est 2012|Valuation $400M|Raised $177.3M|23 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 80K|Web traffic 1.7M|FTEs 191|HQ New York, New York, US

MarketsLow-Code Development Platforms

Platform CoversWeb Forms & Lead Capture Landing Page Builders

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Bubble vs FlutterFlow - FlutterFlow emphasizes code export as an advantage for teams that require eventual code ownership. FlutterFlow’s positioning highlights a different trade-off: earlier ability to transition to a code-centric stack versus remaining on a managed platform. - Bubble positions itself as an integrated platform that bundles backend and hosting, which can reduce the number of separate vendor relationships and may reduce initial operational overhead. Bubble vs Softr / Glide (portal/internal tool builders) - Softr and Glide can be faster to deploy for simple portals and internal tools; they often expose simpler models for common portal patterns and may have pricing based on user counts or record limits. - Bubble is typically selected when deeper custom logic, complex data relationships, and tailored UX are required, at the cost of a steeper build expertise requirement. Bubble vs WeWeb (visual front-end + external backend) - WeWeb commonly pairs with external backends (Xano/Supabase) and can appeal to teams that prioritize backend flexibility and clearer code ownership. - Bubble’s bundled approach reduces the number of vendors but increases the platform dependency and potential migration effort.

When customers choose competitors instead (and why)

Commonly cited reasons:

Need for code export/ownership → FlutterFlow
Need for marketing-focused CMS/site capabilities → Webflow
Need for simple portals/internal tools with faster onboarding → Softr/Glide

	Bubble	FlutterFlow	Webflow
Starting Price (published)	Entry paid plans at the low-priced tier when billed annually; free tier available	Entry paid plans in the low tens to low hundreds per month depending on plan/seat	Entry site plans at a low tens-per-month price when billed yearly
Suitable For	Full-stack, database-driven web apps; rapid MVPs; managed hosting	Mobile-focused apps with the option to export code for later development	Marketing sites and CMS-driven content; design-focused site builds
Key Strength	Integrated visual workflows, backend, and managed hosting	Code export and integration with the Flutter ecosystem for mobile-focused projects	Web design and CMS capabilities for marketing and content-driven sites
Key Weakness	Limited portability/export options; WU cost/performance trade-offs; user-reported billing issues	May require separate backend or additional infrastructure choices, increasing complexity	Complex app logic and backend capabilities typically require external systems

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Bubble vs FlutterFlow

FlutterFlow emphasizes code export as an advantage for teams that require eventual code ownership. FlutterFlow’s positioning highlights a different trade-off: earlier ability to transition to a code-centric stack versus remaining on a managed platform.
Bubble positions itself as an integrated platform that bundles backend and hosting, which can reduce the number of separate vendor relationships and may reduce initial operational overhead.

Bubble vs Softr / Glide (portal/internal tool builders)

Softr and Glide can be faster to deploy for simple portals and internal tools; they often expose simpler models for common portal patterns and may have pricing based on user counts or record limits.
Bubble is typically selected when deeper custom logic, complex data relationships, and tailored UX are required, at the cost of a steeper build expertise requirement.

Bubble vs WeWeb (visual front-end + external backend)

WeWeb commonly pairs with external backends (Xano/Supabase) and can appeal to teams that prioritize backend flexibility and clearer code ownership.
Bubble’s bundled approach reduces the number of vendors but increases the platform dependency and potential migration effort.

When customers choose competitors instead (and why)

Commonly cited reasons:

Need for code export/ownership → FlutterFlow
Need for marketing-focused CMS/site capabilities → Webflow
Need for simple portals/internal tools with faster onboarding → Softr/Glide

	Bubble	FlutterFlow	Webflow
Starting Price (published)	Entry paid plans at the low-priced tier when billed annually; free tier available	Entry paid plans in the low tens to low hundreds per month depending on plan/seat	Entry site plans at a low tens-per-month price when billed yearly
Suitable For	Full-stack, database-driven web apps; rapid MVPs; managed hosting	Mobile-focused apps with the option to export code for later development	Marketing sites and CMS-driven content; design-focused site builds
Key Strength	Integrated visual workflows, backend, and managed hosting	Code export and integration with the Flutter ecosystem for mobile-focused projects	Web design and CMS capabilities for marketing and content-driven sites
Key Weakness	Limited portability/export options; WU cost/performance trade-offs; user-reported billing issues	May require separate backend or additional infrastructure choices, increasing complexity	Complex app logic and backend capabilities typically require external systems