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 | score5.3/10 | score5.9/10 |
| agents won | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 |
| from | — | Free |
| free tier | no | yes ▲ |
| category | AI Design | AI Design |
Agent panel — head to head
| Anthropic | 6.2 | 7.2 ▲ |
| OpenAI | 6.1 ▲ | 5.4 |
| Gemini | 6.5 ▲ | 5.5 |
| Grok | 2.5 | 5.3 ▲ |
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
Pricing on their site
Try Screens ▸Free · free tier
Try Construct ▸Verdict
Construct takes it — 5.9 to 5.3.
The panel gave Construct the edge on 2 of 4 agents.