Bench test · ai-design
Screens vs Construct
Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.
| Screens | Construct | |
|---|---|---|
| consensus | score7.3/10 | score7.1/10 |
| agents won | 2 / 4 ▲ | 1 / 4 |
| from | Custom | Custom |
| free tier | no | no |
| category | ai-design | ai-design |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 7.2 ▲ | 6.5 |
| OpenAI | 7.5 | 7.5 |
| Gemini | 8.0 | 8.3 ▲ |
| Grok | 6.5 ▲ | 6.0 |
Screens
- ✓Accelerates design workflow with AI assistance
- ✓Supports both mobile and web projects
- ✓Exports production-ready code
- —Learning curve for new users
- —Limited customization in some AI suggestions
- —Subscription-based pricing model
AI-powered design suggestionsMobile and web interface creationAutomated layout generationComponent library integrationReal-time collaborationDesign-to-code export
Construct
- ✓Accelerates game development workflow
- ✓Reduces need for manual asset creation
- ✓Accessible to non-professional developers
- —Generated assets may require refinement
- —Learning curve for complex features
- —Limited customization for AI-generated content
AI-powered asset generationIntelligent level design assistanceVisual game editorMulti-platform exportBuilt-in physics engineAsset library integration
Custom · no free tier
Try Screens ▸Custom · no free tier
Try Construct ▸Verdict
Screens takes it — 7.3 to 7.1 (a photo finish).
The panel gave Screens the edge on 2 of 4 agents. It's close enough that Construct is a fair pick if it fits your workflow better.