Deploying Sites Built by ChatGPT, Claude, Bolt, Lovable, and Replit

First, figure out what you actually built

Before choosing where to deploy, identify what your AI tool handed you. This matters more than the tool's name, because hosting requirements depend on the output, not the generator.

A static site. Plain HTML, CSS, and JS files, or a framework that builds down to static files (Astro, plain Vite, most landing pages). This is the most common output and the easiest to host. If you can open the index.html file in your browser and it mostly works, it's static.

A static site with a build step. Something like a React, Vue, or Astro project. The source code isn't directly servable. You (or the host) run npm run build first, which produces a dist or build folder of static files. Still static at the end, just with one extra step.

A full-stack app. A Next.js app with server actions, anything with a database, authentication, or API routes that run on a server. This needs a host that can run server-side code, which narrows your options considerably.

Most sites people generate from a prompt — landing pages, portfolios, small business sites, marketing pages — fall into the first two categories. That's worth knowing, because static sites are cheap (often free) and simple to host.

How the output differs by tool

ChatGPT and Claude. When you ask these for a website, you usually get raw code in the chat: one or more HTML/CSS/JS files, or a set of framework files you copy out. There's no built-in deploy. You're responsible for collecting the files into a folder and getting them somewhere. The upside is total portability: it's just files, so any static host will take them.

Bolt. Bolt generates a working project in-browser and can deploy to Netlify directly, which is convenient if you're already in that ecosystem. You can also download the project and host it anywhere. Bolt often scaffolds full framework projects, so check whether yours is static or needs a server.

Lovable. Lovable builds React applications and offers its own publishing, plus the option to connect a custom domain or export the code. Lovable apps frequently use Supabase for backend features. If yours does, the frontend is still static and hostable anywhere, but the backend lives separately in Supabase regardless of where you host the site.

Replit. Replit is a full development environment and can host apps itself, including server-side ones. If you built something with a backend in Replit, Replit's own hosting (or another full-stack host) is the natural fit. If you built a static site there, you can download it and host it like any other static project.

The throughline: every one of these can produce a downloadable set of files. Once you have those files, deployment is the same problem regardless of which tool made them.

Your deployment options

The big platforms: Netlify and Vercel. These are the established, robust choices, and for good reason. Vercel is the home of Next.js and is excellent for full-stack apps, serverless functions, and anything that needs server-side rendering. Netlify is a mature platform with a deep feature set, build pipelines, and a large ecosystem. If you're building something that will grow into a real application — with server logic, lots of dynamic content, or a team — these are the right tools, and they scale with you. They both have generous free tiers and connect to a GitHub repo for automatic deploys.

The tradeoff is that they're built for developers and assume a certain workflow. Connecting a repo, configuring build commands, and understanding the deploy pipeline is straightforward if you already code. If you just generated a static site and have a folder of files, it can feel like more machinery than the task requires.

Cloudflare Pages. Fast, with a famously generous free tier and unlimited bandwidth at every level, which none of the others match. Strong on the static and JAMstack side, backed by Cloudflare's global network. Also developer-oriented and Git-centric, and like the others it leaves forms, richer analytics, and similar extras for you to assemble.

GitHub Pages. Free and fine for simple static sites, especially if your code already lives on GitHub. Limited features and no real path to custom backends, but hard to beat for a personal project or docs site.

EZLaunch. This is my own platform, so weigh the recommendation accordingly. It's built for a specific gap: you have a static site — often one an AI tool just generated — and you want it not just online but actually working, without stitching together separate services to get there. You drag a ZIP (or a single HTML file) onto the dashboard, and it comes out the other side as a real site with SSL. It is not a full-stack platform and isn't trying to be. If you need serverless functions or server-side rendering, Vercel or Netlify is the better choice. Its reason to exist is removing the assembly work between "I have files" and "I have a finished site," which is covered in the next section.

The part that's actually different: AI-assisted SEO and editing

Most hosts stop at serving your files. The two features that set EZLaunch apart aren't about hosting at all. They're about what happens to the site after it's live, and they don't have a real equivalent on the big platforms.

These two are the genuine moat. If your question is simply "where do I put my files," any host works. If it's "where can I host a site and keep improving it without learning to code," that's a much shorter list.

Cost and best use at a glance

Free tiers tell you little here, because the interesting comparison is what you get at the entry paid tier — roughly $5/month — where the differences in what's included show up.

The pattern: the big platforms compete on infrastructure scale and developer features, and they win there. Bandwidth, full-stack support, and room to grow are theirs. EZLaunch competes on value density for a small static site. At $5/mo, analytics, SEO help, asset hosting, a custom domain, and AI editing come in one plan. Matching that bundle elsewhere means paying for add-ons (Netlify's analytics alone costs more than EZLaunch's entire plan) and wiring up separate tools for SEO and editing.

A few honest caveats:

• Cloudflare's free tier is unusually generous — unlimited bandwidth and requests — with a paywall only for team features, more builds, or Workers. For raw hosting at scale, it's the cheapest, full stop.
• Netlify made form submissions free and unlimited across its credit-based plans in 2026, so forms are no longer a premium feature there, but its built-in analytics remain a paid add-on.
• Vercel's free Hobby plan is for personal, non-commercial use; commercial sites require Pro.
• Free tiers across all of them look similar on paper, but a $0 bill today doesn't guarantee a $0 bill next month. Model your expected traffic against each platform's overage pricing before committing.

A simple decision path

• You have a folder of static files and want it live with minimal steps: any of these work; EZLaunch or GitHub Pages are the lowest-friction.
• Your project has a build step but is static at the end: Netlify, Vercel, and Cloudflare Pages build automatically from a repo. EZLaunch works if you run the build locally and upload the output.
• You built a full-stack app (server routes, SSR, a self-hosted database): Vercel for Next.js, or Netlify and Replit depending on the stack. A static host won't run your server code.
• You want a free, permanent home for a personal or docs site: GitHub Pages or the free tier of any of the above.
• You want a static site that's live, SEO-ready, and editable without code: this is the specific case EZLaunch is built for.

The one thing that trips people up

The most common deployment failure has nothing to do with the host: it's deploying source code instead of built output. If your AI tool gave you a React or Astro project and you upload the source folder, you'll get a blank page or a wall of errors, because browsers can't run that code directly. You need to run the build step first (npm run build or equivalent) and deploy the resulting dist or build folder.

If your site is plain HTML, CSS, and JS with no build step, ignore all of that and just deploy the files as-is.