Vibe coding is an AI-first development approach where code is generated rapidly without deep architectural planning, often leading to rewrites and technical debt.

Why does vibe coding cost more over time?

While vibe coding feels fast initially, it often leads to rewrites, delays, and senior engineering cleanup that increase total project cost.

Is this calculator exact?

No. It provides directional estimates based on common startup patterns observed in real-world projects.

Vibe Code Loss Calculator (2026)

Estimate Your Hidden Cost

This calculator estimates *money already lost* — not future spend — from rewrites, delays, and lack of technical ownership.

Project stage

How was the app built?

Number of developers involved

How many times has the code been reworked?

Check all that apply:

No automated tests No clear data model No single technical owner Multiple people touching everything

Rewrite Probability Calculator

Estimate how likely your current trajectory is to require a major rewrite.

What Is the Vibe Code Loss Calculator?

This tool exists because many startups don’t fail due to lack of effort — they fail due to *invisible technical debt* accumulated early.

AI-first development can feel productive, but without architectural ownership, teams often discover the real cost later: rewrites, stalled pilots, missed launches, and lost credibility.

Why “Fast” Code Becomes Expensive

Multiple developers touching the same logic
No clear data ownership
Features added without constraints
Rewrites disguised as “refactors”

By the time a senior engineer is brought in, the cost is already sunk. This calculator models that reality.

Who This Is For

Founders evaluating rewrite risk
CTOs inheriting AI-generated codebases
Investors doing technical diligence
Teams feeling “stuck” despite progress

How to Use This Number

Treat this estimate as a signal — not a verdict. If the number surprises you, it usually means the architecture hasn’t been explicitly owned yet.

The fastest teams are not the ones who write code the quickest — they’re the ones who avoid rewriting it.

Book a technical reality check

Why “Just One More Rewrite” Is a Lie

Rewrites often feel like corrective measures, a chance to fix what went wrong. But more often than not, they repeat the same failures around ownership and accountability that caused the problem in the first place.

Founders frequently blame the tools or frameworks for architectural shortcomings, when the real issue lies in unclear decision rights and lack of technical leadership. Without clear ownership, the same patterns emerge again and again.

Each rewrite resets velocity back to zero, erasing hard-won progress and momentum. What feels like a fresh start is often just revisiting the same challenges under a different name.

Senior engineers recognize this pattern early and push for clarity in ownership and scope before investing time in rewrites. Ignoring these signals usually leads to repeated cycles of frustration and lost time.

Understanding this cycle is the first step toward breaking it — and building software that lasts.

Talk to someone who’s seen this movie before