# Cordango vs Lovable: governed projects, or one company model > Lovable enterprise workspaces have roles, SSO, SCIM, audit logs and portfolio-wide visibility. The difference left is architectural. Checked against Lovable's own documentation. Source: https://www.cordango.com/vs/lovable/ Language: en [Home](https://www.cordango.com/) [Compare](https://www.cordango.com/vs/) Cordango vs Lovable # Cordango vs Lovable Lovable has real guardrails now. What is left is a difference in what each new app starts with. This page used to say Lovable had no governance. That was wrong, and it is worth saying so plainly. Lovable’s enterprise product has workspace roles and groups, SSO and SCIM, security and privacy policies that apply across a workspace, login controls on published apps, and searchable audit logs. Workspace Insights, which landed in June 2026, gives an administrator a view across the whole portfolio. What has not changed is the shape underneath. Lovable’s own launch post describes enterprise workspaces growing to thousands of projects, each with its own database and its own published endpoints. That is a governed portfolio of separate applications, and it is a reasonable thing to want. Cordango is making a different bet: one company model that every capability reads, so the fifteenth app knows who your customers are because the first one did. Fact-checked 25 August 2026 Feature availability and pricing change. Every row is checked against the vendor's own current documentation, linked at the foot of this page. Default means it is there without anyone setting it up. Available means the vendor supports it, sometimes only on a particular plan. Build or configure means it is possible and it is your work. Not a focus means the product is aimed somewhere else. ## The short version. Where Lovable wins - FREE Design freedom. Whatever you can describe, it will look like that. - OUT Products you sell, landing pages, anything customer-facing - CODE Real code, in your own repository, portable on the way out - GOV Workspace roles, SSO, SCIM and audit logs on the enterprise tier - FAST Idea to working thing in an afternoon, with nobody to ask first Where Cordango wins - CTX Your organizations, people and teams are in the app before you build it - RBAC One rights model, rather than one designed per project - LOG One field-level history across everything anyone built - EU German data centres, and we name the provider in the sub-processor list - KEEP Built to be the thing that outlives whoever made it ## Side by side. Cordango vs Lovable, compared across the dimensions that change the decision. Fact-checked 25 August 2026. | | Cordango | Lovable | | --- | --- | --- | | Building an app by describing it | Default the normal way in, alongside ready-made capabilities | Default the whole product | | Design freedom over the result | Not a focus purpose-built screens from a shared vocabulary. No blank canvas. | Default anything you can describe, down to the pixel | | Shared company records across every app | Default organizations, people and teams are there before the first app | Build or configure projects can share a backend if you design that. Nothing arranges it for you. | | Workspace roles and identity | Default Microsoft and Google sign-in on every plan, SAML and SCIM higher up | Available roles and groups on paid plans, SSO and SCIM on Enterprise | | Authorisation inside the app | Default enforced below the application, per entity, per field and per command | Build or configure each project’s authorisation is designed and written for that project | | Audit across every app | Default field-level history produced by the runtime, nothing to model | Available searchable workspace audit logs on Enterprise | | One view across the whole portfolio | Default there is one platform to look at | Available Workspace Insights, since June 2026 | | Data architecture | Default one company model, one schema per tenant, every capability reads it | Not a focus a database per project. The right answer for products, an awkward one for operations. | | Owned by the company, not the maker | Default the workspace is the company’s and the apps sit inside it | Available workspace ownership and central administration on paid plans | | Managed hosting | Default backups, updates and patching are ours | Default projects are hosted and published for you | | German or EU data residency | Default German data centres, sub-processors published | Unclear we could not find a documented customer-selectable German or EU region. Ask Lovable rather than assuming either way. | | Taking the result elsewhere | Not a focus your data exports. The app is a definition on the platform. The compiler and CLI are Apache-2.0, the platform is not. | Default real code, syncable to your own GitHub repository | | Apps you sell to customers | Not a focus Cordango is for how a company runs, not for what it sells | Default customer-facing products are a first-class use case | | One contract for the whole platform | Default apps are not priced separately. The tenth capability does not add a line item. | Default one Lovable contract, with credits and seats published | ## The architecture difference. Lovable’s unit is the project. It gets a database, endpoints and an authorisation model of its own, and the workspace governs the collection of them: who may open which project, who belongs to which group, what the audit log caught. That is a real answer to sprawl and it works. Cordango’s unit is the capability, and it does not get its own anything. It reads the organizations, the people, the teams and the roles that were on the platform before it existed, and it writes to the same history. Nobody decides who your customers are for the fifteenth time, because that was decided once. The price of that is the design row above. You are not getting a blank canvas, and you are not getting a repository to walk away with. Where Lovable wins Lovable is the better choice when what you are building is for customers rather than colleagues, when visual freedom matters more than a shared rights model, or when you want the code in your own repository. ## Which one should you pick? ### Pick Lovable if - 01 You are building something for customers, not for colleagues - 02 The design matters more than the rights model - 03 You want the code in your own repository - 04 It is a prototype or a one-off and does not need to outlive itself ### Pick Cordango if - 01 The app holds real employee and customer records - 02 Somebody will ask who can see it, and the answer should already exist - 03 You expect a tenth capability, and a twentieth - 04 German hosting is on the requirement list rather than the wish list SRC ## Where these facts come from. - [Lovable for enterprisedocs.lovable.dev/introduction/lovable-for-enterprise](https://docs.lovable.dev/introduction/lovable-for-enterprise) - [Workspace Insights, 23 June 2026lovable.dev/blog/workspace-insights-govern-your-workspace](https://lovable.dev/blog/workspace-insights-govern-your-workspace) - [Lovable pricinglovable.dev/pricing](https://lovable.dev/pricing) **What we can show you, and what we cannot.** Cordango holds no ISO 27001, SOC 2 or C5 certification today, and has not commissioned an external penetration test yet. We would rather you read that here than find it in procurement. [Security and permissions at Cordango](https://www.cordango.com/security/), and the [data processing agreement](https://www.cordango.com/dpa/) in full. NEXT ## Bring one internal app. See what it inherits. Bring a process you would otherwise prompt into a new project. We will build it in the demo, on a company platform that already has your people and your permissions in it. [Book a demo →](https://www.cordango.com/contact/) [All comparisons →](https://www.cordango.com/vs/)