Anything

Name: Anything
Brand: Anything
Rating: 2.7 (8 reviews)

AI Native

Anything is an AI-assisted application builder that converts natural-language instructions into working web and mobile applications by generating UI, backend code, bundled infrastructure (Postgres, authentication, payments, storage), and app publishing workflows.

Est 2020|Valuation $100M|Raised $28M

Website|Web traffic 107K|FTEs 866|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsLow-Code Development Platforms

Published Sep 30, 2026

01Common complaints

- Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient - Enterprises with stringent vendor-risk and compliance requirements (for example, documented SOC 2, DPA, audit logs, SSO/SCIM) may find the public documentation insufficient unless contractual assurances and private documentation are provided. - Industries or use cases where competitors are clearly superior - Regulated industries (healthcare, financial services, public sector) that require formal compliance artifacts and documented security controls. - Complex native-mobile applications that require custom SDKs or native modules beyond platform-built capabilities. - Technical requirements this product may not meet - Deep customization through third-party libraries or native modules not supported by the platform. - Requirements that mandate thorough code review and high-confidence security assurance without the option for developer inspection. - Budget constraints - Buyers with a strict monthly budget of approximately $20–$25 may exceed that budget rapidly for non-trivial projects if the credit model results in high consumption. - Specific workflows/integrations where it falls short - Specialized integrations where the required SDK or module is unavailable and cannot be installed by the user. - Red flags in the buying process - Reported historical rebrand/migration issues that affected project editability for some users. - A restrictive refund policy for subscriptions, which increases the downside risk if the platform does not meet specific requirements. - Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor - The credit system and the differential credit costs of modes (for example, Max mode) are documented by the vendor. - The vendor’s public documentation states that subscription refunds are generally not offered. - Roadmap (not publicly available) - A specific public roadmap with delivery dates and milestones was not found in the reviewed sources. - Scale limitations - The vendor makes claims about supporting large codebases, but independent validation of those claims is limited in the sources reviewed. - Security/compliance gaps - No clear public SOC 2 or ISO 27001 documentation was found in the sources reviewed. - Technical debt / architectural limitations mentioned in reviews - Extensibility constraints (inability to install custom SDKs/native modules) are frequently cited as blockers. - Reliability concerns (for example, previews failing and agent loops) are reported in negative reviews. - API limitations / integration constraints - Built-in integrations are a strength, but lack of support for additional custom modules can prevent certain integrations.

02Why they buy

- Competitive advantages observed in customer feedback and public reviews (vendor claims noted separately) - Some users on public platforms commented positively on the user interface and on outputs that they perceived as polished compared with other AI-generated results. - Features and capabilities emphasized by the vendor - Combined web and mobile output workflow with integrated services (Postgres, auth, Stripe, storage) and an App Store submission workflow. - Differentiation based on reviews - Positive: perceived speed and a higher level of UI polish for some use cases. - Negative: reports of rapid credit consumption and difficulty completing some projects, which reduces the practical advantage for affected users. - Areas where competitors have documented advantages - Competitors may provide more explicit enterprise governance and security controls, and mature no-code platforms have larger ecosystems of templates and plugins.

03Field reports

- Direct quotes (balanced mix) - Vendor-site testimonials (marketing-selected) - "I was able to go from idea to App Store in a short timeframe!" (testimonial shown on vendor homepage) - "Honestly I’ve got no coding or real tech experience and this wouldn’t been possible without what you guys have made." (homepage testimonial) - Trustpilot (negative) - "Support is awful, and I genuinely wish I could give less than the lowest rating." (Trustpilot review, May 2026) - "Paid an advertised fee for their premium service and couldn't produce anything… couldn't display even a preview… and they told me no [refund]." (Trustpilot review, Dec 2025) - "Existing projects Impossible to edit anymore… (with no prior notice)… Stay away… very shady company…" (Trustpilot review, Aug 2025) - Reddit (negative; community complaint) - "Tldr: If you had a live project on the platform it is gone (accessible but not modifiable..) and you Will have to pay credits to migrate to a new one." (Reddit thread in a developer community) - G2 (negative; limited volume) - "You can describe what sounds like a simple feature, watch Max loop on it, and wake up to find a very large amount of credits gone with nothing working." (G2 review page snippet) - Product Hunt (mixed) - Positive themes summarized on the listing include a clean UI and outputs that several users said did not feel like generic templates. - Negative user comment: "So far I've purchased a large pool of credits and burned through most of them with no luck…" (Product Hunt listing) - Common criticisms and complaints (as seen across platforms) - Credit consumption and cost unpredictability - Reports indicate agents can loop and consume significant credit amounts without delivering working functionality (reported across G2, Product Hunt, and Trustpilot). - Platform constraints and extensibility - Complaints state custom SDKs and native modules cannot be installed, limiting integrations and device-level capabilities unless the platform provides built-in support. - Support quality - Several users describe support as automated or slow to respond; documentation and some public responses indicate email escalation paths but no public SLA or response-time guarantees were found. - Rebrand / migration disruption (historical but repeatedly referenced) - Users report that projects were affected by a rebrand/migration, with some alleging projects became uneditable and that migration required spending credits. - Why customers reportedly chose this product over alternatives (inferred from messaging and reviews) - Single workflow for mobile and web outputs and emphasis on Expo-based mobile deployment. - Bundled infrastructure: database, authentication, payments, storage, hosting, and app publishing workflows. - Design-focused output positioning that some users found preferable compared with other AI-generated results. - Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons) - Unpredictable costs related to credit consumption. - Extensibility limits that prevent required custom modules. - Trust concerns related to platform changes and refund policies. - Specific outcomes customers achieved (with metrics when available) - Vendor and press claims include users shipping App Store apps and company-level early run-rate figures; these claims are vendor- or press-reported and lack independent audit in the sources reviewed.

Case Studies

- Vendor-published / press-reported success narratives - The company’s launch blog and vendor materials include claims of being able to build applications at scale (for example, references to very large codebases) and examples of mobile apps shipped to app stores. Tech press coverage relayed vendor statements and examples of user-built apps. These claims and narratives are not independently validated in the sources reviewed, and vendor methodologies are not fully disclosed. - What’s missing for a rigorous buyer case study - Independent ROI and time-to-value studies that include: - Baseline comparisons (traditional development, no-code platforms, and other agentic tools) - Total cost calculations (credits, subscriptions, human time) - Post-launch operational metrics (crash rates, performance, security findings, maintenance burden) - Mixed/negative “case-like” evidence (user experiences) - Multiple user reports describe spending a significant amount of credits or budget without achieving intended functionality, which counters vendor success narratives in some cases.

04Best fit

Ideal Customer Profile

- Company sizes - Best fit appears to be: - Solo founders and very small teams - Early-stage startups validating an MVP - Small businesses building simple customer-facing apps or internal tools - For larger enterprises, gaps in publicly documented security, compliance, and governance features may be blockers unless addressed via contract and private documentation. - Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (examples) - The vendor’s examples include teachers, marketers, salon owners, and real estate agents, which suggests appeal among non-software-native professions seeking rapid application assembly. - Roles and personas - Decision makers: founders, product leads, growth or marketing leads, operations leaders - End users: non-technical builders, product managers, designers, and operational staff who build tools - Pain points addressed - Rapid prototyping and time-to-first-version for concept validation - Reducing the need to stitch together multiple services by bundling common infrastructure - Enabling non-engineering staff to assemble functional app prototypes - Qualification criteria: factors indicating a strong fit - Projects operate within the platform’s supported integrations and built-in modules. - The organization accepts a usage- or credit-based pricing model and budgets for iterative agent usage. - Applications do not require custom native SDKs or specialized device-level features not provided by the platform. - Deal disqualifiers: factors indicating a poor fit - Organizations requiring documented compliance artifacts (e.g., SOC 2/ISO) without vendor-provided documentation. - Projects that rely on installing custom native modules or SDKs. - Requirements for predictable, fixed costs for extensive iterative development where a credit-based economy introduces unacceptable variance.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- Anything is an AI-assisted application builder that converts natural-language instructions into working web and mobile applications. The vendor presents the product as a tool that generates UI, backend, hosting, and integrated services rather than as a traditional coding assistant. - The vendor states the product can perform iterative code generation, codebase exploration, refactoring, error detection, and updates via plain-English prompts. - The platform includes bundled services (Postgres database, authentication, payments integration, storage/uploads, AI model integrations, and third-party integrations) and app publishing (including app store submission support), which the vendor highlights as differentiators.

Target market and market positioning

- Primary target: non-technical founders, independent builders, and small teams seeking to create minimum viable products (MVPs) and, in some cases, production applications without hiring dedicated engineering staff. - Secondary target: technical builders who prefer a faster scaffolding or agentic workflow but plan to inspect and maintain generated code. - Positioning: the vendor positions the product as capable of producing outputs intended for production use rather than prototypes, citing bundled infrastructure and automated testing/error remediation features.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Anything including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →