I build websites using AI tools. Not as a gimmick, but because they genuinely let me deliver better work faster. A 5-page service business site that used to take me 2-3 weeks now takes 4-5 days, and the quality is better.
But the AI tooling landscape is noisy. Every week there’s a new “game-changing” tool that promises to “revolutionize web development.” Most of them are marketing wrapped around the same underlying models.
Here’s what I actually use, what I’ve tried and dropped, and what’s worth your money if you’re building websites or hiring someone who is.
The Core Stack: What I Use Daily
Claude (Anthropic)
Cost: £18/month for Pro (as of March 2026)
What it does: Claude is the best AI for writing actual production code. Better than ChatGPT, better than GitHub Copilot for full implementations.
How I use it:
- Writing complete page components from scratch
- Debugging weird CSS layout issues
- Architecting how different parts of a site should fit together
- Converting design mockups into working code
- Explaining complex technical decisions to clients
Why it’s good: Claude writes cleaner code than GPT-4. Less likely to hallucinate package names or invent APIs that don’t exist. Better at understanding context and maintaining consistency across a large codebase.
Real example: I describe a pricing table layout, show Claude the design, and ask for Tailwind CSS code. It outputs production-ready HTML/CSS that works first time in 80% of cases. The other 20% needs minor tweaks.
Is it worth £18/month? Absolutely. I save 5-10 hours per week. If you’re building websites professionally, this pays for itself on day one.
Cursor
Cost: £20/month for Pro
What it does: Cursor is VS Code with AI baked in. It’s a code editor that autocompletes entire functions, edits across multiple files, and chats with you about your codebase.
How I use it:
- Tab-complete for boilerplate code (imports, exports, type definitions)
- CMD+K to edit code inline (“add error handling to this function”)
- Chat with my codebase (“where is the testimonial data coming from?”)
- Multi-file edits (“rename this component everywhere it’s used”)
Why it’s good: It’s not writing the architecture or making big decisions. It’s handling the tedious bits. Renaming things consistently. Adding TypeScript types. Writing test cases for functions I’ve already built.
Real example: I write a React component. Cursor autocompletes the imports, suggests props based on how I’m using it, and generates the TypeScript interface automatically. What used to take 3 minutes of typing takes 20 seconds of tab-accepting.
Is it worth £20/month? Yes, if you’re writing code daily. No, if you’re a business owner who rarely touches code. This is for people who live in a code editor.
v0 by Vercel
Cost: £20/month for unlimited generations
What it does: You describe a UI component, v0 generates React code with Tailwind styling. You can iterate on it visually, then copy the code.
How I use it:
- Prototyping complex UI components (pricing tables, feature comparison grids)
- Getting unstuck when I can’t visualize how a layout should work
- Generating starting points for components I’ll customize
Why it’s selective: v0 is great for isolated components but doesn’t understand your broader design system. The code it generates is clean but generic. You need to adapt it to match your site’s look and feel.
Real example: I needed a FAQ accordion component. Described it to v0, got three visual variations, picked one, copied the code, adapted the colours and spacing to match my design tokens. Saved maybe 30 minutes compared to building from scratch.
Is it worth £20/month? Only if you’re building lots of custom UI components. For basic service websites with standard layouts, it’s overkill. I keep the subscription because I use it 3-4 times per project, but it’s the first thing I’d cut if I needed to save money.
Midjourney
Cost: £30/month for Standard plan
What it does: AI image generation. Describe an image, get something that looks surprisingly good.
How I use it:
- Hero section background images (abstract, textured, gradient-style)
- Custom icons and graphics when stock libraries feel generic
- Mockup backgrounds for case studies
- Visual concepts when clients can’t articulate what they want
Why it’s good: Stock photos look like stock photos. Midjourney outputs are unique and can be tailored to your exact colour scheme and vibe.
Real example: A client wanted a hero section with “professional but warm, tech-forward but not cold.” I generated 10 options in Midjourney with abstract geometric patterns in their brand colours. Picked one, refined it, had a custom hero image in 20 minutes.
Limitations: Faces are still weird. Text in images is still broken. Product photography is hit-and-miss. It’s great for abstract, illustrative, or stylized work. Not great for realistic photography.
Is it worth £30/month? If you need custom visuals regularly, yes. If you’re happy with Unsplash and standard stock, no.
The Tools I’ve Tried and Dropped
GitHub Copilot
Why I stopped using it: Cursor does everything Copilot does but better. Copilot was great in 2023, but Cursor’s implementation is more context-aware and the multi-file editing is game-changing.
Who should still use it: If you’re locked into VS Code for work reasons and can’t switch to Cursor, Copilot is fine. But if you have the choice, Cursor wins.
ChatGPT Plus
Why I barely use it anymore: Claude is better at code. ChatGPT is slightly better at creative writing and brainstorming, but not enough better to justify switching between tools.
Who should still use it: If you’re doing lots of content writing and minimal coding, ChatGPT might fit better. For web development specifically, Claude is the better choice.
Framer AI
Why I stopped using it: Framer itself is great for quick landing pages, but the AI features are shallow. It’s mostly templating with slightly smarter text suggestions. You’re better off using Claude to write custom code.
Who should still use it: Non-technical people building simple sites. If you’re not comfortable with code, Framer’s visual builder + AI is accessible. But for custom work, it’s limiting.
Webflow AI
Why I never really started: Same problem as Framer. The AI features feel bolted on, not core to the workflow. Plus, Webflow’s pricing is absurd for what you get. I’d rather build in Astro or Next.js and host on Vercel for a fraction of the cost.
Who should still use it: Agencies that are already deep in the Webflow ecosystem and have clients paying retainers. For new projects, I’d skip it.
What I Don’t Use AI For
Not everything should be AI-generated:
Strategy and positioning - AI can suggest ideas, but it can’t figure out what makes your business different or who your ideal customer is. That requires human insight.
Client relationships - AI can draft emails, but client communication still needs the personal touch. Especially for service businesses where trust is everything.
Quality control - AI writes good first drafts. It doesn’t catch edge cases or test across devices. I still manually test every site on multiple browsers and screen sizes.
Design taste - AI can execute a design, but it can’t tell you if the design is good. Taste is still a human skill.
The Workflow in Practice
Here’s how I actually use these tools together on a typical project:
Day 1 - Planning
- Chat with Claude about site architecture and tech stack decisions
- Use Midjourney to generate mood board images for design direction
Days 2-4 - Build
- Write components in Cursor with heavy AI autocomplete
- Use v0 to prototype complex UI bits I’m not sure about
- Use Claude for any tricky logic or debugging
Day 5 - Polish
- Claude helps optimize performance and accessibility
- Midjourney generates final hero images and custom graphics
- Cursor helps refactor repeated code into reusable components
Testing (ongoing)
- Manual testing in browsers (no AI involved)
- Claude helps debug weird edge cases
The AI tools handle the implementation. I handle the strategy, design decisions, and quality control.
What’s Coming (Maybe)
There are tools on the horizon that might change things:
GPT-5 - Rumoured for late 2026. If it’s a big leap, might challenge Claude’s code dominance.
Cursor + Claude integration - Already possible, but could get tighter. Would be ideal.
AI design systems - Tools that maintain design consistency across a project automatically. This would be huge but isn’t there yet.
Better image generation - When AI can reliably generate realistic photos with correct text, Midjourney becomes even more valuable.
But I’m not holding my breath. Most “game changers” are incremental improvements wrapped in marketing.
The Cost-Benefit Reality
My AI tool budget: £68/month (Claude, Cursor, Midjourney)
Time saved per project: 15-20 hours
Projects per month: 3-4
ROI: Absurdly high. £68 buys me 45-80 hours of time savings per month.
Even if you’re not building full-time, the math works. One website project saved 15 hours pays for nearly a year of Claude and Cursor.
Should You Use These Tools?
If you’re a developer or agency: Yes, immediately. Claude and Cursor will pay for themselves in the first week.
If you’re hiring a developer: Ask what tools they use. If they’re not using AI assistance in 2026, they’re either ideologically opposed (fair) or behind the curve (problem).
If you’re a business owner considering DIY: AI makes building websites easier, but it doesn’t make it trivial. You still need to understand design, UX, copywriting, and how the pieces fit together. AI accelerates skill, it doesn’t replace it.
The Honest Take
AI tools are genuinely useful for web development now. Not in a “might be useful someday” way, but in a “I use them every single day and they materially improve my work” way.
But they’re tools. They don’t replace judgement, taste, or experience. They make the implementation faster so you can spend more time on the parts that actually matter: understanding what the client needs, designing something that serves their customers, and building something that works reliably.
The websites I build with AI look better, work better, and get delivered faster than the ones I built without it. That’s why I use them, and that’s why I’ll keep paying for them.
If you’re building websites professionally and not using AI tools in 2026, you’re working harder than you need to. Want to see what AI-assisted development looks like in practice? Our business website service uses these tools to deliver quality faster.
