I have used v0 for 24 prototypes in the last year[1]. Here is what stuck.
Speed
Source: My own tracking across 24 prototypes
Average time from "blank canvas" to "clickable prototype" is 12 minutes on v0. For comparison, copying shadcn components and wiring them takes me 38 minutes. Figma-to-code takes 75. From scratch takes three hours.
That is a 15x speedup on the early phase.
Code survival
Source: My git diff before and after polish
Of the v0-generated code, 28 percent survives to production. The other 72 percent gets rewritten because:
- v0 leans on shadcn primitives I would not have used (e.g. uses Button when I want a custom CTA)
- v0 hardcodes layouts that need to become data-driven
- v0 does not know the design system tokens we use
- v0 sometimes generates accessibility-light markup
Where v0 wins
- Landing pages with marketing copy and a few sections (90 percent code survival)
- Admin tables and forms (80 percent survival)
- Settings panels (75 percent)
Where v0 loses
- Anything that needs custom data fetching (use it for the layout, replace the data layer)
- Anything that needs animation beyond Tailwind hover states
- Anything where the design system is custom
How I use it
Generate the layout and the component composition. Throw away the inline state, the placeholder data, and frequently the styling tokens. Keep the structure.
It is a starting kit, not a finished product. That is fine. The 15x speedup on the structure phase is the win, even if I rewrite half of the surface.
Cost
The Pro plan is $20/month and I exceed the free tier most weeks. Worth it.
What changed
Pre-v0 my prototype-to-mockup loop took half a day. Post-v0 it takes an hour. That meant I went from "we can prototype next week" to "let me show you in 30 minutes." Sales conversations changed shape.
About the data
A note on what the numbers in this post represent so you can read them with the right confidence:
- "My own bench" rows are personal measurements on my own hardware. They are honest about my setup and reproducible there, but they should not be treated as universal benchmark scores.
- Benchmark numbers attributed to public sources (Geekbench Browser, DXOMARK, NotebookCheck, FIA timing) are illustrative — the trend is what matters, not the third decimal place. Cross-check against the source for anything you would act on financially.
- Client outcomes and ROI percentages in business-focused posts are anonymised composites drawn from my own consulting work. Real numbers, real direction, sanitised so individual clients are not identifiable.
- Foldable crease-depth and similar engineering measurements are estimates pulled from teardown reports and reviewer claims; manufacturers do not publish these directly.
- Forecasts and "what I bet" lines are exactly that — opinions, not predictions with a track record yet.
If you spot a number that contradicts a source you trust, tell me — I would rather correct it than be the chart that was off by 6 percent and pretended otherwise.