hubai.uk Ask HubAI
NEWAsk HubAIJob + constraints → shortlist, cost, risk and pilotStart decision
HEAD-TO-HEAD BUYER DESK

Compare the tools that compete for the same job.

Choose any two products, inspect the trade-offs and calculate the cost of a result your team can actually use.

Compare two products now ↓
LIVE COMPARISON

Put any two products on the counter.

Scores help you shortlist. The final decision should come from one repeated task using your own inputs.

VS
02 · DEFINE THE BUYER

The winner changes when the job changes.

HubAI applies visible rule-based adjustments to the catalogue evidence. This is a shortlist signal, not a substitute for testing.

DE
Code AI

Devin Fusion

58FIT /100

A multi-model coding harness that keeps a frontier lead in control while a sidekick handles delegated execution. Published cost reductions make it a credible pilot candidate, but quality varies by benchmark and independent accepted-change, security and complete-cost testing is pending.

Best for
Engineering teams testing a frontier lead and lower-cost sidekick on long, repository-level coding work
Price
Included within Devin plan quotas; current Pro is $20/month, Max $200/month, and Teams $80/month plus $40 per full developer seat; extra usage uses API pricing
Free / trial
Free plan has a light quota and limited models; paid plans include full model access, with promotional SWE-2 use through 10 October 2026
Watch-out
Two-agent orchestration adds failure paths and makes spend attribution more complex
Low confidence · Score v1.1+ Catalogue evidence available for review.! Output quality needs a same-task proof check.
Read full review →
CO
Code AI

Cognition SWE-2

58FIT /100

Cognition's latest coding model is designed for agentic repository work and configurable effort. Vendor-arranged benchmark results position it as a cost-efficient sidekick, but independent capability, reliability and cost-per-accepted-change testing is pending.

Best for
Cost-aware agentic coding as a standalone Devin model or the execution sidekick in Devin Fusion
Price
Included within applicable Devin plan quotas; promotional free use for paid Pro, Max and Teams subscribers through 10 October 2026; extra usage uses API pricing
Free / trial
Devin Free has limited model availability; paid plans provide full model access
Watch-out
Promotional access ends on a published date and future terms are not guaranteed
Low confidence · Score v1.1+ Catalogue evidence available for review.! Output quality needs a same-task proof check.
Read full review →
CONTEXTUAL DECISION SNAPSHOT

A fit-score draw. Let the pilot decide.

DE

Choose Devin Fusion whenLead and sidekick keep separate persistent contexts instead of relying on one routing decision

CO

Choose Cognition SWE-2 whenDesigned specifically for multi-turn agentic coding workflows

OUTCOME COST COMPARISON

Compare usable results—not plan badges.

Enter one representative monthly scenario for each product. No price is inferred from vendor copy.

PUBLISHED PRICE REFERENCE

Devin Fusion

Included within Devin plan quotas; current Pro is $20/month, Max $200/month, and Teams $80/month plus $40 per full developer seat; extra usage uses API pricing

£3.41/ accepted output
£0.41 software£3.00 review
PUBLISHED PRICE REFERENCE

Cognition SWE-2

Included within applicable Devin plan quotas; promotional free use for paid Pro, Max and Teams subscribers through 10 October 2026; extra usage uses API pricing

£3.41/ accepted output
£0.41 software£3.00 review
Run the same real task in both products, then replace these assumptions with measured acceptance and review time. Tax, overages and implementation costs are excluded.
COMPARISON LIBRARY

One buying decision per page.

Start with the job, inspect the evidence, then run the supplied side-by-side test before purchasing.

01Images 2.5 speed versus precision for production workflows
GPT-Image-2.5 FlareVSGPT-Image-2.5 Sunburst

OpenAI's faster image API route compared with its quality-led option, using accepted-output cost as the deciding measure.

0 / 0Open comparison →
02Low-cost API music generation versus creator-first song production
Google Lyria 3.5VSSuno

Google’s structure-controlled Gemini music model compared with a mature creator-facing song platform.

0 / 8.4Open comparison →
03General work and long-document reasoning
ChatGPTVSClaude

The broad multimodal assistant against the careful long-form specialist.

9.5 / 9.3Open comparison →
04All-round AI versus Google-native productivity
ChatGPTVSGemini

A general AI workbench compared with an assistant designed around Google’s ecosystem.

9.5 / 9.1Open comparison →
05Document intelligence versus Workspace integration
ClaudeVSGemini

Long-context analysis compared with a Google-connected assistant.

9.3 / 9.1Open comparison →
06Polished all-round product versus value reasoning
ChatGPTVSDeepSeek

A mature general assistant compared with a cost-sensitive technical challenger.

9.5 / 8.7Open comparison →
07Production control versus cinematic realism
RunwayVSGoogle Veo

An integrated creative studio compared with a realism-led video model.

8.9 / 9.2Open comparison →
08Creative suite versus image-to-video motion
RunwayVSKling AI

A professional workspace compared with a strong movement and image-animation challenger.

8.9 / 8.8Open comparison →
09AI-native editor versus mainstream coding assistant
CursorVSGitHub Copilot

A codebase-aware AI editor compared with broad IDE and GitHub integration.

9.1 / 8.9Open comparison →
010On-page content optimisation versus full SEO suite
Surfer SEOVSSemrush AI

A focused content optimiser compared with a broader research and competitive intelligence platform.

8.6 / 8.5Open comparison →
011Premium art direction versus production asset workflow
MidjourneyVSLeonardo AI

Aesthetic image generation compared with controllable asset and variation pipelines.

9 / 8.7Open comparison →
012Everyday design suite versus performance ad variants
Canva AIVSAdCreative.ai

A broad small-business design platform compared with a paid-media creative specialist.

8.7 / 8.2Open comparison →
013Source-led research versus a broad AI workspace
PerplexityVSChatGPT

A citation-first answer engine compared with a wider general-purpose assistant.

9 / 9.5Open comparison →
014Production workflow versus fast social effects
RunwayVSPika

A deeper creative workspace compared with a quick effects-led video generator.

8.9 / 8.1Open comparison →
015Motion realism versus creator-friendly speed
Kling AIVSPika

An image-to-video realism specialist compared with a fast social video tool.

8.8 / 8.1Open comparison →
016Corporate training versus avatar-led marketing
SynthesiaVSHeyGen

A structured enterprise learning platform compared with a flexible presenter and localisation studio.

8.7 / 8.8Open comparison →
017Searchable meeting memory versus connected team workflows
Otter.aiVSFireflies.ai

A straightforward transcription workspace compared with an integration-led meeting assistant.

8.6 / 8.5Open comparison →
018Integrated code workspace versus visual product prototyping
ReplitVSLovable

A browser IDE with hosting compared with a prompt-led product builder.

8.7 / 8.6Open comparison →
019Visual product workflow versus flexible browser scaffolding
LovableVSBolt

Two rapid app builders compared on interface quality, iteration control and engineering hand-off.

8.6 / 8.3Open comparison →
020Prompt-to-deck speed versus broad design control
GammaVSCanva AI

A rapid narrative deck generator compared with a wider visual design suite.

8.6 / 8.7Open comparison →
021Brand marketing platform versus GTM workflows
JasperVSCopy.ai

A brand-governed content system compared with a sales and go-to-market workflow specialist.

8.4 / 8.1Open comparison →
022Knowledge workspace versus structured project intelligence
Notion AIVSAsana AI

AI inside flexible team documents compared with AI inside a formal work-management system.

8.4 / 8.2Open comparison →
NORMALISATION RULE

A score is only useful when the test matches the category.

Video tools are judged differently from code assistants. HubAI keeps the four shared dimensions visible, then adds a job-specific test plan to every comparison.

01Output quality02Creative control03Value04Ease of useRead scoring methodology →