HASH: 0x82b3...eacd • SNAPSHOT: 2026-09-17 • CORPUS: APP BUILDERS CATEGORY • DIMS V2-5DIM verified SCORING RUBRIC v2

EMPIRICAL BENCHMARK DOSSIER N=2 ARCHIVED TOOLS • 5 DIMENSIONS

Create vs Dyad: output quality and workflow fit on the deterministic index

Create (text-to-full-stack app builder (now rebranded as Anything)) and Dyad (free, local-first, open source AI app builder for your desktop) go head-to-head across AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index — quality, features, usability, performance and value — with every score drawn from published tool archives as of 2026-09-17. Which app builders tool should teams standardize on?

workspace_premium AiRecMark Verified Winner

Dyad Wins by +0.6 Overall Points

Dyad (81.0/100) leads the Airecmark five-dimension composite, taking Performance, Value for Money. Create (80.4/100) stays ahead on Output Quality, Feature Depth, Usability. Create entry pricing is roughly 5% lower ($19/mo).

Delta: +0.6 Composite Score Create Output Quality Lead: +1 pts

Create 80.4

Output Quality

Feature Depth

Usability

Performance76

Value for Money80

Inspect Create →

Dyad 81.0

Output Quality80

Feature Depth78

Usability84

Performance

Value for Money

Inspect Dyad →

Archive vectors

5-Axis Differential Engine Performance

Create

Dyad

Value for Money

Dyad takes Value for Money by 6.0 points (86 vs 80) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

DYAD (86)86 / 100

CREATE (80)80 / 100

Feature Depth +2.0 pt Lead

Create takes Feature Depth by 2.0 points (80 vs 78) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

CREATE (80)80 / 100

DYAD (78)78 / 100

Usability +2.0 pt Lead

Create takes Usability by 2.0 points (86 vs 84) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

CREATE (86)86 / 100

DYAD (84)84 / 100

Scenario Architecture

Choose Your App Builders Tool by Working Style

Both tools sit near the top of the app builders category, but their dimension profiles and pricing models produce clearly distinct working styles.

terminal

Standardize on Create if...

Optimized for: Non-Technical Founders Shipping Full Apps

check_circle Leads Output Quality (81 vs 80): a 1-point edge on the deterministic index.
check_circle Free tier with public projects: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Dyad.
check_circle Database, web search, models and image gen built in: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Dyad.
check_circle Visual QA via computer-use agent on top tier: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Dyad.

SUBSCRIPTION TIER

Try Create arrow_forward freemium • from $19/mo • Create.xyz (Anything)

speed

Standardize on Dyad if...

Optimized for: Privacy-Minded Builders Who Own Their Code

check_circle Composite lead (81.0/100): tops the Airecmark index against Create (80.4/100) on the archive-recorded five-dimension composite.
check_circle Leads Performance (78 vs 76): a 2-point edge on the deterministic index.
check_circle Runs locally with no vendor lock-in: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Create.
check_circle Works with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Ollama and local models: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Create.

SUBSCRIPTION TIER $20 / mo

Try Dyad arrow_forward freemium • from $20/mo • Dyad

Empirical Breakdown

5-Axis Benchmark Deep Dive

Dimension scores are drawn from the AiRecMark tool archives (V2-5DIM, as of 2026-09-17) on a 0-100 scale; per-axis winner calls use the higher dimension score with deterministic tie handling.

AXIS 01

Output Quality

Accuracy, depth and reliability of primary outputs

CREATE: 8.1 / 10 DYAD: 8 / 10

Create — Output Quality

Create posts 81 / 100 on Output Quality. The audit highlights free tier with public projects and database, web search, models and image gen built in as its signature strengths.

Dyad — Output Quality

Dyad posts 80 / 100 on Output Quality. The audit highlights runs locally with no vendor lock-in and works with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Ollama and local models as its signature strengths.

AXIS 02

Feature Depth

Breadth, maturity and extensibility of the capability set

CREATE: 8 / 10 DYAD: 7.8 / 10

Create — Feature Depth

Create posts 80 / 100 on Feature Depth. The audit highlights free tier with public projects and database, web search, models and image gen built in as its signature strengths.

Dyad — Feature Depth

Dyad posts 78 / 100 on Feature Depth. The audit highlights runs locally with no vendor lock-in and works with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Ollama and local models as its signature strengths.

AXIS 03

Usability

Onboarding, interface clarity and daily ergonomics

CREATE: 8.6 / 10 DYAD: 8.4 / 10

Create — Usability

Create posts 86 / 100 on Usability. The audit highlights free tier with public projects and database, web search, models and image gen built in as its signature strengths.

Dyad — Usability

Dyad posts 84 / 100 on Usability. The audit highlights runs locally with no vendor lock-in and works with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Ollama and local models as its signature strengths.

AXIS 04

Performance

Speed, stability and consistency under production load

CREATE: 7.6 / 10 DYAD: 7.8 / 10

Create — Performance

Create posts 76 / 100 on Performance. The audit highlights free tier with public projects and database, web search, models and image gen built in as its signature strengths.

Dyad — Performance

Dyad posts 78 / 100 on Performance. The audit highlights runs locally with no vendor lock-in and works with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Ollama and local models as its signature strengths.

AXIS 05

Value for Money

Pricing fairness relative to delivered capability

CREATE: 8 / 10 DYAD: 8.6 / 10

Create — Value for Money

Create posts 80 / 100 on Value for Money. Published entry pricing: Free plan · Pro 20K $19/mo · Max-tier $199/mo (220K credits) · Teams custom · 2 months free annual.

Dyad — Value for Money

Dyad posts 86 / 100 on Value for Money. Published entry pricing: Free (BYO API key) · Pro $20/mo (200 credits) · Max $79/mo (900 credits).

Feature-by-Feature Matrix

Exhaustive Technical Specification Diff

COMPLIANCE: AIRECMARK EVALUATION PROTOCOL V2.4

Capability / Specification	Create ($19/mo)	Dyad ($20/mo)	Deterministic Winner
Overall AirecMark Score Composite of the five recorded dimensions	80.4 / 100	81.0 / 100	Dyad (Composite lead)
Output Quality Accuracy, depth and reliability of primary outputs	81 / 100	80 / 100	Create (+1 pts)
Feature Depth Breadth, maturity and extensibility of the capability set	80 / 100	78 / 100	Create (+2 pts)
Usability Onboarding, interface clarity and daily ergonomics	86 / 100	84 / 100	Create (+2 pts)
Performance Speed, stability and consistency under production load	76 / 100	78 / 100	Dyad (+2 pts)
Value for Money Pricing fairness relative to delivered capability	80 / 100	86 / 100	Dyad (+6 pts)
Starting Price Published entry pricing (USD)	Free plan · Pro 20K $19/mo · Max-tier $199/mo (220K credits) · Teams custom · 2 months free annual	Free (BYO API key) · Pro $20/mo (200 credits) · Max $79/mo (900 credits)	Create (Lower entry price)
Best For Documented target audience	Non-Technical Founders Shipping Full Apps	Privacy-Minded Builders Who Own Their Code	Tie (Use-case dependent)

Engineering Operations

Migration Playbook: Switching Without Friction

Swapping a daily driver mid-project is costly. Follow this three-step checklist to evaluate Create and Dyad on equal terms before standardizing your team.

01

Export Config, Prompts & Data

Inventory what each candidate needs: prompt libraries, templates, connected accounts and project files. Export from your current stack first so Create and Dyad start from the same baseline.

SETUP: SAME BASELINE

02

Map Pricing to Your Real Usage

Compare published entry tiers against your expected volume. Create starts at $19/mo (freemium); Dyad starts at $20/mo (freemium) — model the monthly cost at your actual workload before committing.

ECONOMICS: PUBLISHED TIERS

03

Run a Two-Week Parallel Trial

Run both tools on the same live tasks for ten working days. Score outputs against the five Airecmark dimensions, then let the 0.6-point composite gap — not vendor marketing — decide the standardization call.

balance

Deterministic Evaluation Methodology & Integrity Standard

AiRecMark evaluates every tool against its deterministic five-dimension index (Quality, Features, Usability, Performance, Value) using official documentation, published pricing pages and the published five-dimension rubric. All scores, deltas and winner calls in this dossier are drawn from the published tool archives as of 2026-09-17 and can be traced back to the public tool profiles.

Affiliate Blind Trust Policy: Any referral commissions or partner links generated through AiRecMark are routed into a blind trust utilized exclusively to fund bare-metal compute benchmarks. Zero sponsored placement or ranking distortion is permitted under any circumstances.

BENCHMARK ENGINE: AIRECMARK-DETERMINISTIC-V2.4 • SOURCE: DATA/TOOLS/*.JSON

Archive record