How We Built CurataHub on Lovable (Case Study)
CurataHub itself runs on a Lovable-built codebase — a content-heavy affiliate site with hundreds of programmatic pages. Here's what actually worked, what we built in code instead of prompts, and the real credit cost.
Ready to try Lovable?
Start free — see current plans for details.
Disclosure: This page contains affiliate links. If you sign up through them, CurataHub may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. We only recommend products we genuinely believe are valuable.
A Real Site, Not a Demo
Most Lovable write-ups are built around a weekend toy app. This one isn't: CurataHub — the site you're reading — is built and deployed on Lovable, and it's a content-heavy affiliate and review site with hundreds of programmatic pages, structured data on every route, and a flat-file content layer. That's a very different test of an AI app builder than generating a single CRUD screen.
This is an honest account of what building CurataHub on Lovable was actually like: where it genuinely accelerated the work, where we ended up in the code instead of the prompt, and what the credit-based pricing meant for a site this size. It's written from doing it, not from re-reading the docs.
What CurataHub Actually Is
Under the hood, CurataHub is a TanStack Start + React app. There's no CMS and no database — the entire content layer is two flat files (a tools dataset and a blog dataset) that drive dynamic routes for tool pages, alternatives, comparisons, best-of hubs and blog posts. Most of the SEO surface — canonical tags, hreflang, JSON-LD like SoftwareApplication, BreadcrumbList and FAQPage — is generated per route in code.
That architecture matters for this case study because it plays to a specific mix of strengths and limits in an AI app builder: the app shell and components are exactly what prompting is good at, while the content model and programmatic SEO are things you're better off owning in code.
Where Lovable Helped Most
The biggest win was speed on the app shell: generating the React components, layouts and design system from prompts got a good-looking, working site up far faster than hand-building the scaffolding. Lovable's UI generation is genuinely strong, which matters when the site's credibility depends on looking polished.
The second win was that the generated code is real and editable, not a black box. That's the difference between a prototype and something you can actually grow — and it's why a small content site could turn into hundreds of routes without hitting a wall where the tool stops and you can't take over.
Owning the Code via GitHub Sync
The single most important decision was using GitHub two-way sync from the start — which Lovable includes on every plan, including Free. CurataHub lives in a normal Git repository, so everything is version-controlled, reviewable and editable in a real editor, and the project is never trapped inside the platform.
In practice that means the parts of the site a prompt can't express cleanly get done in code, committed to Git, and synced back — while the parts that are faster to prompt stay in Lovable's flow. If you take one thing from this case study, it's this: turn on GitHub sync before you build anything real, so ownership and escape-hatch are never in question later.
What We Built in Code, Not Prompts
For a content site, the content layer itself is best maintained in code, not by chatting with an AI. CurataHub's two flat-file datasets, the query helpers that power internal linking, and the per-route structured-data are all hand-authored and edited directly — they're precise, repetitive and version-sensitive in ways that prompting doesn't handle well.
That's not a knock on Lovable; it's the right division of labour. Prompt the app shell and UI, then own the data and the SEO logic in code. Trying to prompt your way through hundreds of near-identical content records or exact JSON-LD would burn credits and precision for no benefit.
The Credit Cost Reality
Lovable is priced on credits, not seats, and on a large, iteratively-built site that's the number to watch. Every round of prompting to adjust the UI or generate a new section spends build credits, so a heavy week of iteration adds up in a way a flat subscription wouldn't.
The lesson we'd pass on: size your credit tier to your real iteration volume rather than defaulting to the cheapest one, and lean on Code Mode plus GitHub for the changes that don't need the AI at all — editing a component by hand costs no credits, while re-prompting it does. We break the plans and the three credit types down in our companion Lovable pricing guide.
Honest Trade-Offs
Lovable is still an evolving platform, and advanced customization eventually needs real coding knowledge — the further CurataHub got from a standard app shell (bespoke routing, generated data files, structured data), the more the work moved into code rather than prompts. That's expected for a content-heavy, SEO-driven site, but it's worth going in knowing that the prompt does the first 70%, not the last mile.
The credit-based cost is also less predictable than a subscription, which is the recurring theme of building on Lovable: fast and genuinely capable, as long as you budget credits deliberately and are comfortable dropping into the code you own.
Would We Recommend Building This Way
For shipping the app shell of a real site fast, with polished UI and real code you fully own, yes — Lovable earned its place in how CurataHub was built. The GitHub sync and editable code are what make it safe to commit to for something you intend to grow, rather than just prototype.
The caveat is scope-specific: for a content-heavy, SEO-first site, expect to live in the code for the content and structured-data layer, and to budget credits for iteration. If you want that same fast start but with post-launch marketing and agents bundled in, it's worth weighing Base44 alongside it — we compare the two directly in our Lovable vs Base44 guide.
Get started with Lovable
See what's included on Lovable's free plan.
Disclosure: This page contains affiliate links. If you sign up through them, CurataHub may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. We only recommend products we genuinely believe are valuable.
Frequently asked questions
Was CurataHub really built with Lovable?
Yes. CurataHub is built and deployed on Lovable — it's a TanStack Start + React codebase, generated and iterated with Lovable and synced to GitHub, then deployed from there. It's a content-heavy affiliate and review site with hundreds of programmatic pages, not a demo app.
Is Lovable good for content or affiliate sites?
It's good for building the app shell and UI of one fast, and for owning the resulting code. But the content layer and programmatic SEO are best maintained in code rather than by prompting — so expect a split: prompt the interface, own the data and structured data in your repository.
Do you need to know how to code to build a site like CurataHub on Lovable?
You can get a long way without it, because the app shell and UI come from prompts. But a content-heavy, SEO-driven site eventually needs hand-editing — bespoke routing, flat-file data and exact JSON-LD are code work. Lovable gets you most of the way; the last mile benefits from some coding comfort.
How do you keep Lovable credit costs under control on a big site?
Size your credit tier to your actual iteration volume instead of the cheapest plan, and use Code Mode plus GitHub for changes that don't need the AI — editing a component by hand costs no credits, while re-prompting it does. Estimate your credit burn in the first month before committing to a tier.
Does Lovable lock you into its platform?
No. GitHub two-way sync is available on every plan, including Free, so your code lives in your own repository and can be edited locally or deployed elsewhere. Owning the code is exactly what makes it safe to build something you plan to grow.
What was the hardest part of building on Lovable?
The work that a prompt can't express cleanly — precise, repetitive or version-sensitive things like a flat-file content model, internal-linking logic and exact structured data. Those moved into code. Lovable handled the app shell well; the content and SEO layer was hand-authored.
Would you build a content site on Lovable again?
For the speed of shipping a polished app shell with real, owned code, yes. The trade-offs to accept going in are credit-based pricing that rewards deliberate budgeting, and the reality that a content-heavy SEO site means living in the code for the data and structured-data layer.
Should I choose Lovable or Base44 for a project like this?
Both give you exportable code. Lovable is the sharper pure app builder with strong UI and enterprise controls; Base44 adds post-launch agents, SEO/GEO and social tooling in one platform. For a content/affiliate site, weigh whether you want a focused builder plus your own SEO work, or an all-in-one build-and-market platform.
Tools mentioned in this article
Related Resources
Related articles
Lovable Pricing Explained (2026): Credits & Plans
Lovable is priced on credits, not seats, which makes the real cost harder to read than a subscription. Here's what each plan includes, how the three credit types work, and the one top-up trap to avoid.
Lovable vs Base44 (2026): Which AI App Builder?
Lovable and Base44 both turn a prompt into a full-stack app with real, exportable code. Here's how they differ on build experience, what they do after launch, pricing and who each one fits.
Muso AI API: Access, Endpoints & Pricing (2026)
Muso.AI has a public REST API for pulling verified music credits and discography data into your own systems. Here's what it returns, how to get an API key, and why the pricing isn't published — checked against Muso's own API docs.
✉ Newsletter
Get the best new AI tools every week
One short email. Curated tools, no fluff. Unsubscribe anytime.