Best AI Website Cloners in 2026 (Free & Paid, Compared)

Search "AI website cloner" and you get a wall of tools that all promise the same thing: paste a URL or a screenshot, get a copy. They solve different problems, though, and the gap between the demo and the code you actually ship is wide.

This comparison covers the AI cloners, the URL-based extractors, the prompt builders, and the free full-site downloaders, with what each costs today and where each one falls short.

Full disclosure: I build one of the tools in this list (MiroMiro), so I'll flag where it loses, not just where it wins.

Quick picks

• Best for cloning a live section into clean code: MiroMiro. Reads the real DOM, exports Tailwind, HTML + CSS, React, Vue or Elementor.
• Best AI agent for rebuilding a whole site as an app: same.new.
• Best for a screenshot or Figma file with no live page: screenshot-to-code (free, open source) or Builder.io Visual Copilot.
• Best for building something new from a prompt: v0, Lovable or Bolt.
• Best free option for archiving a whole site: HTTrack.

Comparison table

Prices checked October 2026, monthly billing in USD unless noted. Annual plans are cheaper on most of these, and credit-based plans change often, so check each site before you buy.

The pattern: the AI tools rebuild or generate, the downloaders mirror, and only a few read the real page. Which one fits depends on whether the design you want already exists as a live website.

How an AI website cloner actually works

When a tool says it clones a site with AI, it usually means: you give it a screenshot or a URL (which it screenshots and scrapes), a model looks at what it got, and it writes HTML, Tailwind or React that tries to match. The model isn't reusing the page's real CSS. It is reconstructing code from appearance, the way you'd sketch a room from a photo.

For a clean, simple layout this works surprisingly well. The trouble starts once the design has detail:

• Fonts become lookalikes. The model can't read the font file, so it picks the closest match it knows.
• Spacing and sizes are estimated, and small errors stack until the rhythm is visibly off.
• Semantic HTML (<nav>, <section>, <button>) is inferred from appearance, so you often get a wall of <div> tags.
• Hover states, transitions and breakpoints don't exist in a static image, so the clone has none of them.
• Colors are sampled approximations, so brand colors land a shade or two off.

None of this is a knock on the tools. It's the ceiling of any image-to-code workflow: the model is always working backward from pixels. Plenty of buyers have hit it:

The tools below split into the ones that read the real page, the ones that rebuild with a model, and the ones that generate something new.

Cloners that read the live page

These start from the rendered page itself, so fonts, colors and spacing come from the site rather than from a model's guess.

1. MiroMiro

What it does: A Chrome extension and the Website Cloner on our site. Open any live URL, hover a section, click, and get the real HTML plus the CSS that actually applies, exported as Tailwind, HTML + CSS, React, Vue or an Elementor template. It pulls whole sections (hero, navbar, pricing) or the full page in one click, along with SVG icons, fonts, colors and design tokens. There's also an API and MCP server, so ChatGPT, Claude or Cursor can pull a section's code from a URL directly (it sits next to the Figma MCP: Figma's for your design files, this one for live sites).

Output quality: Clean, because nothing is guessed. The browser already resolved the structure and the exact CSS values, so you get utilities a developer would write, like px-6 py-3 rounded-2xl bg-zinc-900. Real fonts, real spacing, real colors. Because it runs in your own browser, it also works on pages behind your login.

Best for: Cloning a live design into your project, giving an AI editor accurate reference code, or extracting design tokens from an existing site. The step-by-step guide to cloning a website walks through the full workflow.

Pricing: The extension is free to install, and every new account gets a 3-day trial of everything. After that, the free plan keeps CSS, font and color inspection, live style editing, and unlimited image, SVG, font and video downloads. Copying CSS and Tailwind, code export, design tokens, Elementor and Lottie need Pro: €9/month or €60/year.

Drawbacks: It's a Chrome extension, so you need a desktop Chromium browser. Code export isn't free past the trial. It clones what's rendered, one page or section at a time, so it won't crawl a 200-page site. And it can't help with a Figma mockup that doesn't exist as a live website yet; for that, use Builder.io or screenshot-to-code.

2. Alloy

What it does: A prototyping tool with a website cloner. Paste a public URL, or use its Chrome extension for logged-in pages and flows, and Alloy captures the page into an editable, interactive prototype backed by the page's HTML and CSS. You then edit it with AI chat or by selecting elements, and export or share it.

Best for: Product teams who want to prototype a change on top of an existing product page, including signed-in screens.

Pricing: Free plan with $5 of credits per user per month; Pro is $20/user/month.

Drawbacks: It's built around prototypes and sharing, not handing you a tidy component for your codebase, so expect to clean up exported code. AI edits spend credits, and the free allowance goes fast on a real page.

3. websitecloner.io

What it does: Converts a page, or a single section, into self-contained Tailwind HTML from a URL or its Chrome extension, capturing styles across Tailwind's default breakpoints.

Best for: Occasional use when you want Tailwind output and hate subscriptions.

Pricing: No subscription. One-time credit packs: $10 for 1,000 elements, $39 for 5,000, $99 for 20,000. Credits don't expire, and you can preview output before spending any.

Drawbacks: Pricing per element makes a large, detailed page harder to estimate up front. Output is Tailwind HTML only, with no design tokens, asset downloads or framework export.

AI cloners that rebuild the page with a model

These are what most people mean by "website clone AI." A model rebuilds the design, so the result is a new codebase that looks like the original rather than the original's code.

4. same.new

What it does: Paste a URL and an AI agent rebuilds the site as a working app project you can keep editing by chat, then download or deploy. It's one of the tools ranking for "clone website" for good reason: for whole marketing pages, the first pass is often impressively close.

Best for: Getting a running, editable app that resembles a site, fast, when you're fine continuing in an AI builder.

Pricing: Free plan with 500,000 tokens a month. Basic $10, Pro $25, Max $50 and Ultra $100 per month for 2M to 20M tokens.

Drawbacks: It's a rebuild, so the same drift applies on detailed pages: off fonts, approximated spacing, missing interactions. Fixing that by chat burns tokens, and a complex site can eat a free allowance in one session. You also get a whole project when you may only want one section.

5. Anima

What it does: Clones a website from a URL (or a private site via its Chrome extension) or imports a Figma file, then lets you edit with AI and export code or publish.

Best for: Teams already using Anima for Figma-to-code who also want to start from an existing site.

Pricing: The free plan includes 5 chat messages a day and 5 Figma imports or website clones. Paid seats sit above that, and Enterprise starts at $500/month billed annually.

Drawbacks: The free allowance is tight for real evaluation, and the website-cloner page doesn't say which code format it exports, so check that it matches your stack before paying.

6. screenshot-to-code (open source)

What it does: Feed it a screenshot, mockup or screen recording and it asks a vision model (GPT, Claude or Gemini) to rebuild the markup as HTML, Tailwind or React. It's the reference implementation everyone forks from: source on GitHub.

Output quality: A rough scaffold. The simpler the design, the closer it lands; the more detailed, the more it drifts.

Best for: A static mockup with no live source, or tinkering with vision models. It's a good open-source project for that.

Pricing: Free to self-host; you pay your model provider per generation. A hosted version exists at screenshottocode.com.

Drawbacks: It hallucinates values you can check in two seconds on a real page, and you need to be comfortable running it yourself. For a live site this is the slow, lossy path, as covered in screenshot-to-code: what actually works.

7. Builder.io Visual Copilot

What it does: A Figma plugin with AI that also accepts images, exporting React, Vue, Svelte and Angular. It's strong on responsive layout and component structure.

Best for: Teams building from Figma at scale who want a head start, not finished code.

Pricing: Free plan with 60 agent credits a month; Pro $24/user/month, Team $40/user/month.

Drawbacks: Class names, tag choices and accessibility attributes often need a review pass, and per-seat cost compounds across a team. It's anchored to Figma, so it's the wrong tool when your source of truth is a live website.

Prompt builders (generate, don't clone)

8. v0, Lovable and Bolt

What they do: Generate components or full apps from a prompt, and all three accept an image as input. v0 leans towards React and Next.js UI; Lovable and Bolt build full-stack apps.

Output quality: Good when the prompt is precise. It falls apart when you describe something visual, because "a pricing section like Stripe's but more compact" is exactly where words stop being enough.

Pricing:

• v0: Free with a 7 message/day limit; Plus from $30/user/month, Business $100/user/month.
• Lovable: Free with 5 credits a day (30 a month); Pro from $25/month for 100 credits, Business from $50/month.
• Bolt: Free with 1M tokens a month; Pro $25/month, Teams $30/member/month.

Drawbacks: These don't clone anything. They can't open a website and copy a section, because they have no input from the real page. AI design generators like UX Pilot (free plan, paid from $14/month) sit in the same bucket: great for new screens, not for matching an existing one. The strongest workflow is to extract clean reference code first, then hand it to one of these to adapt.

Full-site downloaders and DevTools (no AI)

A category that often gets lumped under "cloning." These save the files rather than rebuild them.

9. HTTrack

What it does: The classic open-source website copier. Point it at a URL and it crawls and downloads every reachable page and asset into a static mirror you can browse offline (httrack.com).

Output quality: Byte-for-byte, which sounds great until you open it: minified CSS, framework data attributes, every asset whether you want it or not.

Best for: Archiving a whole site for offline reading or backup, which it does well, for free.

Drawbacks: The mirror often breaks once it leaves the original server (absolute paths, API calls, lazy-loaded and JavaScript-rendered content), and pulling one clean section out of it is more work than rebuilding by hand.

10. Website downloader extensions

What they do: Browser extensions that zip up a page's or site's HTML, CSS, JS and images.

Drawbacks: Same problem as HTTrack at a smaller scale: a raw dump with compiled class names and unused styles, no section-level targeting, no Tailwind. Usually free, which is about all they have going for them for this job.

11. Browser DevTools

What it does: Built into every browser. Inspect an element, copy outerHTML, copy computed styles.

Drawbacks: You get minified class names like .css-1x9kl7, hundreds of lines of computed CSS per element, and framework attributes you don't want. A 30-minute manual cleanup per component is normal. Fine for debugging your own site, slow as a clone source.

What you actually get for free

"Free website cloner" means different things depending on the tool:

• Fully free, no limits: HTTrack and browser DevTools. Both give you raw files, not reusable components.
• Free if you pay the model: screenshot-to-code, self-hosted with your own API key.
• Free tiers with caps: same.new (500K tokens/mo), Bolt (1M tokens/mo), Lovable (5 credits/day), v0 (7 messages/day), Builder.io (60 credits/mo), Anima (5 clones), Alloy ($5 credits/user/mo). Enough to try a page or two, not to work on.
• Free trial, then paid for code: MiroMiro gives you everything for 3 days. After that, inspecting styles and downloading assets stay free forever; code export is Pro.

If you only need a site's images, SVG icons, fonts or videos, rather than its code, that part of MiroMiro is free on every plan.

Which one should you use?

It comes down to your source:

• The design is a live website: extract the real code. Don't screenshot it and ask an AI to guess what's already in the browser. MiroMiro, Alloy and websitecloner.io all start from the page; MiroMiro is the one built for clean, framework-ready sections plus tokens and assets.
• You want a working app that looks like a site, and you'll keep building in AI: same.new.
• The design is only a screenshot or Figma file: screenshot-to-code or Builder.io. Budget time for cleanup.
• You're building something new from a description: v0, Lovable or Bolt.
• You want to archive a whole site offline: HTTrack.

The combined move works best for most people: extract the real section, then paste it into Cursor, Claude or v0 with your instructions ("rebuild this as a React component with my brand colors"). The AI is great at "translate this into my stack" and weak at "build something that looks like this screenshot", so give it real code to translate.

Install MiroMiro free and clone your first section during the 3-day trial, or see how the Website Cloner works. If you're weighing extraction tools specifically, the export-to-clean-code roundup goes deeper on output quality.

Is it legal to clone a website with AI?

The tool you use, AI or not, doesn't change where the line sits.

• Fine: studying a layout, recreating a pattern (a sticky navbar, a pricing grid), using a clone as a starting point you then make your own.
• Not fine: copying a site's proprietary assets wholesale (logos, brand identity, copy, original images) and passing them off as yours, republishing someone's content verbatim, or ignoring a site's terms of service.

Keep the structure, replace the substance: your own content, brand and assets.