Which AI Builds a Better Website? Site.pro vs 5 Models

Last week, our team from the website builder department had a hackathon. Ten people made a website with their favourite AI models.

Each of us used the same prompt. We chose this one:

“A Winnie-the-Pooh website, with 3 photos, 1 video and 2 pages. Stripe design, minimalist style. Dark mode. Responsive, with flying cucumbers”

The results were funny. But it's been a week, and most of those websites aren't available anymore.

I decided to run this experiment again and document the results in this article. I'll compare how well Site.pro, Grok, ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude and Gemini AI create websites.

Rules

New prompt: “Create a website for a funny mouse with a gallery of 3 images, 1 video, 2 pages in minimalistic style and flying cheese. The website must be responsive and include polka dot patterns”

This silly prompt is used purely for demonstrative purposes to test how AI handles creating and hosting custom websites.

Requirements:

What we want to learn:

Site.pro

Average time for generation: 6 min 32 sec
Average time for publication: 6 min 32 sec
Estimated cost for the first year: ≈ $61

Success

The website was already on a free domain and ready to be published. Here's the first website I generated with our AI Assistant:

Check out the website

All three websites also got a second page that opens on its own URL and a video, although similar to SVG images generated by other AI tools. The first one keeps its video on the Adventures page, the second and the third play it on the home page.

Video by AI Assistant

The images come from the builder itself — 3+ on each website.

Mouse gallery

Unique designs for each website are where Site.pro wins compared to AI models. The website builder also adds special blocks: custom forms, social media icons, etc.

Check out the website

Fail

Unlike raw AI, it can't generate new HTML elements out of thin air and uses existing components and styles already present in the builder.

There is no flying cheese animation on any of the three websites. The hero of the first one is a mouse riding a winged piece of cheese, but it doesn't move. This is a valuable lesson for our dev team: the flying cheese will be surely implemented in future updates :)

The polka dot pattern is the weakest part of the three. The builder has no dedicated polka-dot block, so every website ended up with a substitute. None of them is a real polka dot.

About the Tool

Website builders work differently from vibe-coding and raw AI tools. They work with templates, fonts, and elements that are already configured in the big builder library. It leads to websites being easier to edit after the first iteration.

What’s interesting is that, comparing three websites side-by-side shows that each of them has a distinct hero section and colour palette. Three different templates, not three variations of one.

Measured by visual similarity by AI agents, the Site.pro cluster is the most diverse group of the experiment: its own three websites differ from each other more than the websites of two different AI tools differ from one another.

Check out the website

You can go visit websites by Site.pro and import them to your account and play with components.

See all the websites:

Grok

Model: Expert
Average time for generation: 3 min 33 sec
Average time for publication: 4 min 41 sec
Estimated cost for the first year: ≈ $435

Success

Grok has the best balance between the design and the speed among AI tools I tested. It met almost all of the test requirements — images, pages, gallery, and flying cheese are in place. It's also on the top in terms of illustration and style. Very few other models generate high-quality images as fast as Grok does.

The videos are there as well, only on different pages: on the first and the third website the clip sits on the gallery page, on the second one — on the home page. The polka dot is real here too: a two-layer pattern made with radial gradients on all three, in line with the website copy about Pip living in a polka-dot world.

The first generation of a website by Grok. Click to check it out.

Fail

Regarding the issues — there was a technical problem with mobile. But only one of three websites has this problem, and it's the first one. The gallery on the second page cuts off the preview of images. You can see how the desktop screen compares to the mobile one on the image below.

Right — desktop. Left — mobile.

The gallery mobile responsiveness issues.

We also re-checked all 18 pages of the experiment at a 390 px viewport and did not get a horizontal scrollbar anywhere, so the cut-off previews are a defect of this particular gallery rather than a general responsiveness problem.

Other than that, 3 Grok websites are close to the same quality. There are some minor bugs, such as on the second website. Cheese icons are flying around with the white background intact. On mobile the decorative cheese goes beyond the viewport and gets clipped: it doesn't create a scrollbar, but it is not fully visible either.

Check out the second website

The gallery of the second website is two unique pictures multiplied to nine — the same illustration in the same three slots over and over.

About the Tool

Grok is much less locked to one style than other AIs. It's also focused on visuals by design. That's why our Grok websites have many unique cartoon characters.

If we compare three Grok websites side-by-side, they are following the same pattern, despite them being generated in different periods with no memory turned on. Here's the third website for comparison.

Check out the third website

Of course, designs aren't 100% the same. Each of them has different characters, for example.

When I measured with Hermes agents, Grok turned out to be the most consistent. Its three websites are closer to each other than the websites of any AI model. The layout is identical — a header with Home and Gallery, a hero grid with the text on the left and the illustration on the right, a row of facts and a footer.

You can see all Grok websites here:

ChatGPT

Model: Sol 5.6 Medium
Average time for generation: 1 min 21 sec
Average time for publication: 1 min 51 sec
Estimated cost for the first year: ≈ $315

Not gonna lie, this one was the most exciting for me. ChatGPT is basically an eponym for AI. Let's see how it handles web design.

Success

One of the prompt tasks was to make a website minimalistic. ChatGPT nailed this part, but maybe even too much.

ChatGPT was the second fastest AI in terms of the website generation. The simplistic geometric design of the mouse Milo stays consistent among all three examples. The websites are very light because they have no heavy images or videos.

Gallery on the 3rd GPT website

Regarding the mobile responsiveness, no problems were spotted.

Fail

ChatGPT didn't generate custom illustrations. Instead, it made figures out of basic blocks — and those blocks are vector.

The mouse hero and the three gallery pictures are inline SVG. There is not a single raster image on any of the three websites, so the “3 images generated by AI” requirement is not met: the browser draws these illustrations instead of loading them.

Check out the first website

Another observation: all three websites have a video. But the one on the second website is a random stock demo file instead of a generated clip.

See the video

About the Tool

By default, ChatGPT builds the page like a trendy landing: big type, lots of space, an image card, pill buttons. But partly, this is how ChatGPT is wired.

It leans on grid and headline, so the title often takes up more than half the screen.

The three websites are practically one design system: the same cream background, the same Inter typeface, the same yellow and pink accents. Only the wording changes — the second and the third websites look almost like the same page.

You can see and compare ChatGPT websites here:

Copilot

Model: I used a corporate Copilot model from our Microsoft Teams.
Average time for generation: 2 min 6 sec
Average time for publication: 3 min 11 sec
Estimated cost for the first year: ≈ $175

Success

Copilot nailed the flying cheese animation and technically did create a two-page website with a video section and a gallery section.

Fail

All the content-related requirements failed. The first website has an open-source video of Big Buck Bunny on the front page. No video or images were generated: the pictures are random placeholders and three stock photos from Unsplash, and the videos are YouTube embeds — a rickroll on the second website and the very first video uploaded to YouTube on the third one.

The gallery is not broken, it is hidden. On the first load you only see the hero, and the pictures appear after you click the Gallery tab — the page itself is fine, the first tab is just almost empty. That is why the website looks unfinished before you interact with it.

Check out the first Copilot website

Copilot gallery

Pretty much the same goes for the second site. This time I got unexpectedly rickrolled.

Copilot rickroll

About the Tool

Copilot stayed on the default ground: an open-source cartoon video on the front page, stock photos and a gallery instead of a mouse. It was probably the weakest model on the list, so it was interesting to see what it's capable of. GitHub Copilot Pro with a powerful model from OpenAI or Anthropic would perform better.

Two of the three websites are also practically the same page with different text — the closest pair in the whole experiment.

See all the websites in the links below:

Claude

Model: Sonnet 5
Average time for generation: 5 min 16 sec
Average time for publication: 7 min 19 sec
Estimated cost for the first year: ≈ $275

Claude is known for its high quality of writing and coding. It's a bit slower than alternatives, but in exchange usually brings better results. For this experiment I picked Sonnet 5 — a model our team is using for generating HTML animations and coding assistance.

Claude took the longest time to generate websites. The results you see for yourselves.

Success

See the first website

The style and overall quality are close to ChatGPT websites.

The first website is also the only one in this cluster with three real raster photos in the gallery and a video, which it keeps on its gallery page. So it is the most complete result Claude delivered.

It's worth noting that Claude is the first of the AI models that created a pink website, and not a yellow one. Most of the others settle for a default colour associated with cheese and mice.

See the second website

Fail

Claude left the second website without a single image. Only one website of the three has a video, and it is on the gallery page. The third website replaced the photos with vector figures.

About the Tool

The main reason for the clean designs is that Claude aims for a clean and correct look. That means beige backgrounds, rounded buttons, lots of space, cute illustrations, and a standard hero layout. It's Claude's comfort zone.

Another reason is that my prompt leaves a lot of room for interpretation and doesn't have a lot of details or restrictions. Claude works best when provided with clear instructions and multiple iterations.

In this challenge in particular, iterations weren't allowed. We see and compare the first raw results. That's how an average user will get their website if they ask Claude.

Claude does the job it is intended to do. It will work better in the hands of a pro.

See all the websites:

Gemini

Model: 3.6 Flash
Average time for generation: 1 min 10 sec
Average time for publication: 3 min 25 sec
Estimated cost for the first year: ≈ $315

Gemini by Google became our winner in terms of speed. But how does it translate to quality?

Success

The website technically follows the requirements, but it's almost the same as ChatGPT. Maybe less bold in typography.

Fail

See the first website

Gemini didn't generate images by default: the three pictures on the first website are stock, the second website has no images at all — its gallery is three text captions with names like “The Ultimate Cheddar Dream” — and the third one is drawn with vector figures.

The video of a hamster on the first website is static, the second one is a YouTube embed, and the third one is a unavailable YouTube video.

About the Tool

Gemini itself is a different story: its three websites are as different from each other as from the websites of other tools. Only the light background and the yellow accent stay in place.

When it doesn't use stock photos, it creates minimalistic geometrical illustrations like ChatGPT and Claude.

See the gallery

See all the websites:

How Similar Are AI Websites?

In the sections above, “the same page with a different character” was an observation. This time I checked it with numbers.

Our Hermes agent used its skill for comparing websites. It opened each of the 18 AI homepages in a browser and took two screenshots of each one. Python then turned each picture into numbers — layout and colours — and compared those numbers, so each pair of pages got a score from 0% (nothing alike) to 100% (identical).

Here is how the three iterations of every model score against each other:

The closest pair of the whole set is Copilot's second and third websites — 87%. Both of them are exactly one screen high until you click the Gallery tab, so they match because they are equally empty rather than because of a shared style, and we do not count this pair as one. The closest pairs after it are Claude's first and third websites and Grok's second and third — 86% each.

Site.pro's websites are factually the most diverse among other tools

Short Comparison

Detailed Price Comparison

I estimated the overall cost of maintaining a simple website per year. In the table below you can see a more detailed estimation with the pricing for each website hosting aspect.

Conclusions

Can AI chats create modern and stylish websites? Yes, they can.

But there are a lot of “buts” to it.

Medium models, which are realistic to use for a business owner or a casual user, don't have the means to host websites. They give HTML files that can only be launched on the 3rd party source.

On this 3rd party source a user can indeed publish websites and connect domains. But in 2026, website builders remain a more reliable and straightforward way to create and publish websites. They also include other website-related services on one platform, such as hosting, domain connection, e-commerce and integrations setup, and customer support.