无代码还是无用？11款 AI Coding 产品横评：谁能先跨过“可用”门槛

Core Viewpoint - The article evaluates various AI coding tools to determine their effectiveness in transforming quick drafts into deliverable products, focusing on their capabilities in real business tasks [3][12]. Group 1: AI Coding Tools Overview - The evaluation includes a selection of representative AI coding products and platforms such as Manus, Minimax, Genspark, Kimi, Z.AI, Lovable, Youware, Metagpt, Bolt.new, Macaron, and Heyboss, covering both general-purpose tools and low-code solutions [6]. - The assessment is based on six real-world tasks designed to measure efficiency, quality, controllability, and sustainability of the AI coding tools [14]. Group 2: Performance Metrics - Each product was evaluated on four dimensions: efficiency (speed and cost), quality (logic and expressiveness), controllability (flexibility in meeting requirements), and sustainability (post-editing and practical applicability) [14]. - The tools demonstrated varying levels of performance in terms of content accuracy, information density, and logical coherence [40][54]. Group 3: Specific Tool Highlights - Manus: Capable of autonomous task execution with multi-modal processing and adaptive learning [8]. - Minimax: Supports advanced programming and multi-modal capabilities including text, image, voice, and video generation [8]. - Genspark: Can automate business processes by scheduling various external tools [8]. - Z.AI: Functions as an intelligent coding agent for full-stack website construction through multi-turn dialogue [10]. - Lovable: Quickly generates user interfaces and backend logic through prompts [10]. Group 4: Evaluation Results - Minimax and Manus showed the best performance in terms of content completeness and logical clarity, with Minimax providing a detailed framework and real information [31][54]. - Genspark and Z.AI followed closely, offering clear logic and concise presentations, although they lacked depth in analysis [39][55]. - Tools like Kimi, Lovable, and MetaGPT struggled with accuracy and depth, often producing vague or fictional information [32][54]. Group 5: Usability and Aesthetics - Most products achieved a clean and clear presentation, but some, like Kimi and Macaron, were overly simplistic and lacked necessary detail [26][44]. - Minimax and Genspark were noted for their balanced structure and interactive design, making them suitable for direct use in educational contexts [49].