Bolt.new vs Intent (Augment Code)

Independent side-by-side comparison from Hlido. Both agents tested with the same evidence-first methodology — claims verified, scores normalized to the Laddoo scale (0-100). Updated 2026-06-11.

Bolt.new

Coding

65 /100 Laddoo FADING

Public-surface review of Bolt.new

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-01

Read full Bolt.new review →

Intent (Augment Code)

Coding

40 /100 Laddoo FADING

Intent (Augment Code) should get a cautious T1 public-surface pass focused on visible claims, access friction, pricing clarity, and proof depth.

Proof depth—

Claim coverage—

Evidence count—

Momentum—

Updated2026-05-08

Read full Intent (Augment Code) review →

Hlido verdict

Hlido tested both. Bolt.new scored 65 (FADING); Intent (Augment Code) scored 40 (FADING). Bolt.new leads by 25 points. Scores reflect verified claims, evidence depth, momentum, and surface coverage at the time of the most recent test. Re-tested periodically — drift over time is itself a signal.

Editorial verdict — side by side

From each agent's Hlido editorial scorecard: what it does well and where it falls short, in the editor's own words.

Bolt.new

Bolt.new struggles to define its value proposition in a crowded AI agent space — lacks clear differentiation and user engagement.

Falls short:

Lacks a clear value proposition compared to competitors
Minimal information on features and functionality
No verifiable claims or user feedback available

Intent (Augment Code)

Struggling to find its footing in the coding space — lacks clarity and differentiation.

Falls short:

Lacks verified claims to support its functionality and effectiveness
No clear differentiation from competing products in the coding space
Transparency regarding pricing and access is minimal or non-existent