Lovable's FAQ describes a web app builder. If you already have a Lovable project, there are three decisions to consider: keep it on the web, package the web interface for mobile, or rebuild a native interface. Starting again is not automatically the right answer.
Checked September 22, 2026. Published by Rork. This guide explains documented workflows and engineering tradeoffs. We have not performed a new end-to-end migration test for this revision.
Choose the delivery model first
| Option | What you keep | What needs separate work |
|---|---|---|
| Mobile web or PWA | The web interface and URL | Test installation, permissions and required browser features |
| WebView package | Much of the web interface | Native shell, plugins, signing and store requirements |
| Native rebuild | Product requirements and reusable services | Native screens, navigation, integrations and regression testing |
A native framework does not make offline behavior automatic. Likewise, a web app is not automatically incapable of offline storage or notifications. Test the specific implementation on the browsers and devices your users have. Avoid choosing from a blanket claim that one category cannot perform any useful work on a phone.
Rebuilding a Lovable project in Rork
Rork's Lovable import walkthrough uses the published app URL and its GitHub repository. It describes rebuilding the interface in Swift or Kotlin, rather than packaging the original website. Prepare the correct repository, link it in the import flow and review the resulting screens and configuration.
The walkthrough includes a migration demonstration. Use it as a procedural reference, not proof that every integration in your project will transfer unchanged. Your backend may be reusable; browser navigation and native navigation still need separate validation. Keeping Lovable for the web version is a supported choice in that documentation.
Check what actually carried over
Make a list of the workflows people already use before starting. After the rebuild, compare each one against the original with test data:
- Sign in, sign out and recover access to an account.
- Read and update the correct user's records.
- Open links, upload a file and handle a denied permission.
- Complete the core task, including failures and recovery.
- Verify environment configuration and third-party integrations.
Use a staging backend where possible. A screen that resembles the original does not establish that permissions, data access or payments behave correctly. This is a suggested verification process, not a record of a migration we have completed here.
Compare the alternatives fairly
If you want shared mobile code, include Bolt and Replit in your research; both document Expo workflows. Visual alternatives include Adalo, FlutterFlow and Thunkable. The mobile builder comparison links their documentation and explains the difference between building, previewing and publishing.
If you prefer Rork's current platform-specific model, remember that existing Expo projects follow a different path. The legacy Expo guide explains their continued support. There is no need to characterize a working web app as a failed mobile project simply because its users do not need app-store distribution.
Decide from the smallest useful trial
Keep the web app if opening a link meets the requirement. Investigate packaging if retaining the web interface is the priority. Trial a native rebuild when the desired navigation or platform integration justifies maintaining another interface.
Compare total cost for the same scope: builder usage, backend services, testing and ongoing maintenance. Do not assume a native rebuild doubles every cost or that consolidating tools removes all maintenance. Start with the documented Lovable import and one representative workflow before committing the entire product.