Evaluating AI Coding Tool Security and the Claude Code Test

Building apps with AI feels like magic, allowing developers to describe an idea and see a working application appear in minutes. However, this speed raises an important question about what happens to code, data, and user information after hitting generate. Many developers focus entirely on shipping quickly without reading privacy policies or asking who owns the finished product. To evaluate these safety concerns, a test was conducted across popular vibe coding platforms to see which tools handle security safely.

The Expense Tracker Security Test

To evaluate the platforms, four leading AI coding tools were given the exact same task: build a personal expense tracker app with user authentication. The application needed to track income and expenses with categories, amounts, dates, and notes, alongside a clean, minimal spending dashboard. The evaluation focused on build experience, security handling, platform-level features, beginner safety scores, and pricing. Each platform was also asked to perform a manual security check and clarify who owns the data of the built applications.

Claude Code Performance and Security

Claude Code took a fundamentally different approach, proving to be a platform designed for developers who already have technical knowledge. The app took around 20 minutes to complete, making it the slowest build in the test due to the manual setup and configuration required for project structure, dependencies, and deployment. On the security front, authentication is not handled natively and must be built through prompting and manual configuration. Data storage also depends on manual setup, as there is no built-in database, resulting in data being stored locally unless an external database is manually connected.