Teardown. tools, taken apart
About

How we test, and who pays for it

Short version: we run the tools on real work, we publish the tasks, and nobody buys a verdict.

ES

Written and tested by

EL Haddad Saad

I build with these tools every day and write down what actually happens. Teardown is where the notes get published: the configs that run in real repos, and the comparisons where I show the scoring instead of asking you to trust a verdict.

The method

Every comparison follows the same shape. We pick a repo that looks like something you would actually inherit: inconsistent, partially documented, a little broken. We write the tasks before we touch either tool, so we cannot unconsciously pick tasks that flatter a favourite.

Each task runs three times per tool in a fresh clone. We record wall-clock time, token spend, how many times a human had to step in, and whether the result would survive review. Where a round is close, we call it a tie rather than inventing a tiebreaker.

Everything is reproducible

The seed repo and the exact task prompts ship with each comparison. If our result does not match yours, we want to hear about it. That is usually where the interesting finding is hiding.

Independence and how this site makes money

Some posts contain affiliate links. Every one of those carries a disclosure at the top of the page, before you read a word of the verdict. Tutorials and how-to guides carry no affiliate links at all. If a post has no disclosure, there is nothing to disclose.

A commission never changes a verdict. The scoring method is published with every comparison so you can check the result yourself, and the tools that lose are frequently the ones that would have paid. No vendor gets an advance copy, a right of reply before publication, or any influence over scoring. Subscriptions and API credits are paid for at list price out of pocket.

No sponsored posts. Nobody buys a place in a ranking.

When a vendor is also an employer, investor, or client of anyone involved, that is disclosed at the top of the post in plain language, not in a footer.

Corrections

These tools change weekly. Every comparison carries the date it was run and a note about shelf life. When something material turns out to be wrong, we correct it in place, note what changed, and leave the old claim visible rather than quietly editing it away.

Pitch a teardown

The best requests come with a repo and a grievance. Tell us what you need the tool to do, what it does instead, and we will try to reproduce it. Messy real-world cases beat synthetic benchmarks every time.

Pitch template

Tool: ___  |  Task I need it to do: ___  |  What it does instead: ___  |  Repo shape: ___ lines, ___ language, ___ years old

The newsletter

One teardown a week.

Only when we have actually run the thing.

No spam. No sponsored verdicts. Ever.