Manifest vs dyad
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | Manifest | dyad |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Repository | Model |
| UnfragileRank | 23/100 | 42/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 |
| 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates incoming LLM requests across 23 distinct dimensions (token count, reasoning depth, context length, tool requirements, etc.) to compute a complexity score that determines optimal model selection. Routes simple queries to lightweight models and complex reasoning tasks to powerful models via a scoring engine that feeds into the request routing pipeline, reducing inference costs by up to 70% by avoiding overprovisioning.
Unique: Uses a proprietary 23-dimension scoring algorithm that evaluates request complexity across multiple axes (not just token count or keyword matching) to make routing decisions, implemented as a dedicated scoring engine in the NestJS backend that integrates with the proxy pipeline for real-time evaluation.
vs alternatives: More granular than simple token-based routing (e.g., Anthropic's batch API) because it considers semantic complexity, tool requirements, and context patterns rather than just message length.
Acts as an intelligent proxy layer between agents and multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, etc.), implementing a proxy pipeline that intercepts requests, applies routing logic, and forwards to the selected provider. If the primary model fails, the system automatically attempts the next model in a pre-configured fallback chain without requiring agent-side retry logic, ensuring resilience across provider outages.
Unique: Implements a dedicated proxy pipeline in NestJS that normalizes requests across heterogeneous LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama) and chains fallback models automatically without agent intervention, using TypeORM for persistent fallback chain configuration.
vs alternatives: More resilient than direct provider APIs because fallback chains are transparent to agents; unlike LiteLLM which requires agent-side retry logic, Manifest handles retries in the proxy layer.
Organizes Manifest as a TypeScript monorepo using npm workspaces and Turborepo for build orchestration, enabling shared type definitions across backend (NestJS), frontend (SolidJS), and plugins. The monorepo structure allows developers to modify shared types and see changes reflected across all packages without separate releases, improving development velocity and type safety.
Unique: Uses npm workspaces and Turborepo for monorepo management, enabling shared TypeScript types across backend (NestJS), frontend (SolidJS), and plugins with efficient incremental builds and caching.
vs alternatives: More efficient than separate repositories because Turborepo caches builds and only rebuilds changed packages; unlike manual type duplication, shared types ensure consistency across the codebase.
Uses TypeORM as the ORM layer for PostgreSQL, defining entity schemas for agents, models, subscriptions, analytics, and API keys with TypeScript decorators. Database migrations are version-controlled and run automatically on deployment, enabling schema evolution without manual SQL and supporting rollbacks via migration history.
Unique: Uses TypeORM with TypeScript decorators for entity definitions and version-controlled migrations, enabling type-safe database access and schema evolution without manual SQL; migrations run automatically on deployment.
vs alternatives: More maintainable than raw SQL migrations because TypeORM provides type safety and query builders; unlike manual schema management, migrations are version-controlled and reversible.
Implements the Manifest backend using NestJS framework with modular service architecture, organizing code into feature modules (analytics, routing, provider management, OTLP) with dependency injection. Each module encapsulates related business logic (e.g., scoring engine, proxy pipeline, cost tracking) and exposes REST APIs via controllers, enabling clean separation of concerns and testability.
Unique: Organizes backend as modular NestJS services (analytics, routing, provider management, OTLP) with dependency injection, enabling clean separation of concerns and testability; each module exposes REST APIs via controllers.
vs alternatives: More maintainable than monolithic Express servers because NestJS enforces modular structure; unlike custom architectures, NestJS provides built-in patterns for dependency injection, testing, and middleware.
Tracks token usage and inference costs in real-time via an analytics API that aggregates data from all routed requests, stores metrics in PostgreSQL, and enforces hard spending caps per agent or user. When spending approaches or exceeds configured budgets, the system triggers email notifications via a dedicated notification service, preventing runaway costs from unexpected high-volume usage.
Unique: Implements a dedicated analytics API with real-time cost aggregation and email-based budget alerts, storing all metrics in PostgreSQL with TypeORM entities for flexible querying and reporting, integrated with a notification service for multi-channel alerting.
vs alternatives: More granular than provider-native cost dashboards because it aggregates costs across multiple providers and enforces custom budgets per agent; unlike manual spreadsheet tracking, it's automated and real-time.
Enables agents to leverage existing flat-rate LLM subscriptions (ChatGPT Plus, Claude Pro, GitHub Copilot) by routing requests through provider accounts that have active subscriptions, avoiding per-token billing for models covered by subscriptions. The system maintains a registry of subscription-backed models and prioritizes them in routing decisions when available, effectively converting subscription costs into marginal-cost inference.
Unique: Maintains a registry of subscription-backed models and prioritizes them in the routing pipeline, allowing agents to consume existing flat-rate subscriptions without per-token billing, implemented via provider management configuration in the NestJS backend.
vs alternatives: Unique to Manifest among LLM routers because most alternatives (LiteLLM, Anthropic Batch API) don't support subscription reuse; this enables significant cost savings for users with existing subscriptions.
Automatically discovers available LLM models from configured providers and synchronizes their pricing data into PostgreSQL via a model discovery pipeline that runs on a scheduled interval. The system maintains a catalog of models with current pricing, context windows, and capabilities, enabling the scoring engine to make cost-aware routing decisions without manual model configuration or stale pricing data.
Unique: Implements a dedicated model discovery pipeline that periodically queries provider APIs and synchronizes pricing into PostgreSQL, enabling dynamic model selection without manual configuration; includes special handling for free models (Ollama, local deployments).
vs alternatives: More automated than manual model configuration (e.g., hardcoding model lists) because it discovers new models and pricing changes automatically; unlike static model lists, this scales as providers release new models.
+5 more capabilities
Dyad abstracts multiple AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini, DeepSeek, Qwen, local Ollama) through a unified Language Model Provider System that handles authentication, request formatting, and streaming response parsing. The system uses provider-specific API clients and normalizes outputs to a common message format, enabling users to switch models mid-project without code changes. Chat streaming is implemented via IPC channels that pipe token-by-token responses from the main process to the renderer, maintaining real-time UI updates while keeping API credentials isolated in the secure main process.
Unique: Uses IPC-based streaming architecture to isolate API credentials in the secure main process while delivering token-by-token updates to the renderer, combined with provider-agnostic message normalization that allows runtime provider switching without project reconfiguration. This differs from cloud-only builders (Lovable, Bolt) which lock users into single providers.
vs alternatives: Supports both cloud and local models in a single interface, whereas Bolt/Lovable are cloud-only and v0 requires Vercel integration; Dyad's local-first approach enables offline work and avoids vendor lock-in.
Dyad implements a Codebase Context Extraction system that parses the user's project structure, identifies relevant files, and injects them into the LLM prompt as context. The system uses file tree traversal, language-specific AST parsing (via tree-sitter or regex patterns), and semantic relevance scoring to select the most important code snippets. This context is managed through a token-counting mechanism that respects model context windows, automatically truncating or summarizing files when approaching limits. The generated code is then parsed via a custom Markdown Parser that extracts code blocks and applies them via Search and Replace Processing, which uses fuzzy matching to handle indentation and formatting variations.
Unique: Implements a two-stage context selection pipeline: first, heuristic file relevance scoring based on imports and naming patterns; second, token-aware truncation that preserves the most semantically important code while respecting model limits. The Search and Replace Processing uses fuzzy matching with fallback to full-file replacement, enabling edits even when exact whitespace/formatting doesn't match. This is more sophisticated than Bolt's simple file inclusion and more robust than v0's context handling.
dyad scores higher at 42/100 vs Manifest at 23/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: Dyad's local codebase awareness avoids sending entire projects to cloud APIs (privacy + cost), and its fuzzy search-replace is more resilient to formatting changes than Copilot's exact-match approach.
Dyad implements a Search and Replace Processing system that applies AI-generated code changes to files using fuzzy matching and intelligent fallback strategies. The system first attempts exact-match replacement (matching whitespace and indentation precisely), then falls back to fuzzy matching (ignoring minor whitespace differences), and finally falls back to appending the code to the file if no match is found. This multi-stage approach handles variations in indentation, line endings, and formatting that are common when AI generates code. The system also tracks which replacements succeeded and which failed, providing feedback to the user. For complex changes, the system can fall back to full-file replacement, replacing the entire file with the AI-generated version.
Unique: Implements a three-stage fallback strategy: exact match → fuzzy match → append/full-file replacement, making code application robust to formatting variations. The system tracks success/failure per replacement and provides detailed feedback. This is more resilient than Bolt's exact-match approach and more transparent than Lovable's hidden replacement logic.
vs alternatives: Dyad's fuzzy matching handles formatting variations that cause Copilot/Bolt to fail, and its fallback strategies ensure code is applied even when patterns don't match exactly; v0's template system avoids this problem but is less flexible.
Dyad is implemented as an Electron desktop application using a three-process security model: Main Process (handles app lifecycle, IPC routing, file I/O, API credentials), Preload Process (security bridge with whitelisted IPC channels), and Renderer Process (UI, chat interface, code editor). All cross-process communication flows through a secure IPC channel registry defined in the Preload script, preventing the renderer from directly accessing sensitive operations. The Main Process runs with full system access and handles all API calls, file operations, and external integrations, while the Renderer Process is sandboxed and can only communicate via whitelisted IPC channels. This architecture ensures that API credentials, file system access, and external service integrations are isolated from the renderer, preventing malicious code in generated applications from accessing sensitive data.
Unique: Uses Electron's three-process model with strict IPC channel whitelisting to isolate sensitive operations (API calls, file I/O, credentials) in the Main Process, preventing the Renderer from accessing them directly. This is more secure than web-based builders (Bolt, Lovable, v0) which run in a single browser context, and more transparent than cloud-based agents which execute code on remote servers.
vs alternatives: Dyad's local Electron architecture provides better security than web-based builders (no credential exposure to cloud), better offline capability than cloud-only builders, and better transparency than cloud-based agents (you control the execution environment).
Dyad implements a Data Persistence system using SQLite to store application state, chat history, project metadata, and snapshots. The system uses Jotai for in-memory global state management and persists changes to SQLite on disk, enabling recovery after application crashes or restarts. Snapshots are created at key points (after AI generation, before major changes) and include the full application state (files, settings, chat history). The system also implements a backup mechanism that periodically saves the SQLite database to a backup location, protecting against data loss. State is organized into tables (projects, chats, snapshots, settings) with relationships that enable querying and filtering.
Unique: Combines Jotai in-memory state management with SQLite persistence, creating snapshots at key points that capture the full application state (files, settings, chat history). Automatic backups protect against data loss. This is more comprehensive than Bolt's session-only state and more robust than v0's Vercel-dependent persistence.
vs alternatives: Dyad's local SQLite persistence is more reliable than cloud-dependent builders (Lovable, v0) and more comprehensive than Bolt's basic session storage; snapshots enable full project recovery, not just code.
Dyad implements integrations with Supabase (PostgreSQL + authentication + real-time) and Neon (serverless PostgreSQL) to enable AI-generated applications to connect to production databases. The system stores database credentials securely in the Main Process (never exposed to the Renderer), provides UI for configuring database connections, and generates boilerplate code for database access (SQL queries, ORM setup). The integration includes schema introspection, allowing the AI to understand the database structure and generate appropriate queries. For Supabase, the system also handles authentication setup (JWT tokens, session management) and real-time subscriptions. Generated applications can immediately connect to the database without additional configuration.
Unique: Integrates database schema introspection with AI code generation, allowing the AI to understand the database structure and generate appropriate queries. Credentials are stored securely in the Main Process and never exposed to the Renderer. This enables full-stack application generation without manual database configuration.
vs alternatives: Dyad's database integration is more comprehensive than Bolt (which has limited database support) and more flexible than v0 (which is frontend-only); Lovable requires manual database setup.
Dyad includes a Preview System and Development Environment that runs generated React/Next.js applications in an embedded Electron BrowserView. The system spawns a local development server (Vite or Next.js dev server) as a child process, watches for file changes, and triggers hot-module-reload (HMR) updates without full page refresh. The preview is isolated from the main Dyad UI via IPC, allowing the generated app to run with full access to DOM APIs while keeping the builder secure. Console output from the preview is captured and displayed in a Console and Logging panel, enabling developers to debug generated code in real-time.
Unique: Embeds the development server as a managed child process within Electron, capturing console output and HMR events via IPC rather than relying on external browser tabs. This keeps the entire development loop (chat, code generation, preview, debugging) in a single window, eliminating context switching. The preview is isolated via BrowserView, preventing generated app code from accessing Dyad's main process or user data.
vs alternatives: Tighter integration than Bolt (which opens preview in separate browser tab), more reliable than v0's Vercel preview (no deployment latency), and fully local unlike Lovable's cloud-based preview.
Dyad implements a Version Control and Time-Travel system that automatically commits generated code to a local Git repository after each AI-generated change. The system uses Git Integration to track diffs, enable rollback to previous versions, and display a visual history timeline. Additionally, Database Snapshots and Time-Travel functionality stores application state snapshots at each commit, allowing users to revert not just code but also the entire project state (settings, chat history, file structure). The Git workflow is abstracted behind a simple UI that hides complexity — users see a timeline of changes with diffs, and can click to restore any previous version without manual git commands.
Unique: Combines Git-based code versioning with application-state snapshots in a local SQLite database, enabling both code-level diffs and full project state restoration. The system automatically commits after each AI generation without user intervention, creating a continuous audit trail. This is more comprehensive than Bolt's undo (which only works within a session) and more user-friendly than manual git workflows.
vs alternatives: Provides automatic version tracking without requiring users to understand git, whereas Lovable/v0 offer no built-in version history; Dyad's snapshot system also preserves application state, not just code.
+6 more capabilities