# Trae AI Reviews **Vendor:** Trae **Category:** [Software de Geração de Código por IA](https://www.g2.com/pt/categories/ai-code-generation) **Average Rating:** 3.4/5.0 **Total Reviews:** 5 ## About Trae AI Trae AI é um Ambiente de Desenvolvimento Integrado (IDE) avançado, alimentado por IA, projetado para revolucionar o desenvolvimento de software atuando como um parceiro colaborativo para desenvolvedores. Ele permite que os usuários descrevam os requisitos do projeto em linguagem natural, e a IA gera, refina e entrega autonomamente código funcional, simplificando o processo de desenvolvimento e reduzindo significativamente o tempo de lançamento no mercado. Principais Recursos e Funcionalidades: - Processamento de Linguagem Natural: Permite que os desenvolvedores insiram as necessidades do projeto em linguagem cotidiana, que a IA interpreta para produzir estruturas de código correspondentes. - Integração de Design: Suporta o upload de arquivos de design, auxiliando na tradução de conceitos visuais em código limpo e funcional. - Aprendizado Adaptativo: Aprende com projetos em andamento para fornecer sugestões contextualmente relevantes, aumentando a eficiência da codificação. - Acesso Multi-Modelo: Oferece acesso gratuito a modelos de IA premium, como Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro e GPT-4.1, expandindo o conjunto de ferramentas do desenvolvedor sem custos adicionais. - Agentes de IA Personalizados: Permite a criação de agentes de IA especializados com comportamentos definidos, acesso a ferramentas e regras específicas do projeto para auxiliar em várias tarefas de desenvolvimento. Valor Principal e Soluções para Usuários: Trae AI aborda os desafios dos longos ciclos de desenvolvimento e a necessidade de prototipagem rápida, automatizando a geração e o refinamento de código. Ele capacita desenvolvedores, de iniciantes a especialistas, a focarem na resolução criativa de problemas e no planejamento estratégico, em vez de tarefas rotineiras de codificação. Ao integrar modelos avançados de IA e aprender com as interações dos usuários, Trae AI aumenta a produtividade, garante a qualidade do código e acelera a entrega de soluções de software. ## Trae AI Pros & Cons **What users like:** - Os usuários valorizam a **assistência eficiente de codificação** do Trae AI, acelerando significativamente a conclusão de tarefas e simplificando os fluxos de trabalho. (1 reviews) - Os usuários valorizam a **facilidade de uso** do Trae AI, pois ele simplifica as tarefas de codificação e melhora significativamente a eficiência. (1 reviews) - Os usuários valorizam as **soluções que economizam tempo** da Trae AI, permitindo uma conclusão de tarefas mais rápida e atualizações de código simplificadas. (1 reviews) - Os usuários valorizam a **facilidade de implementação** do Trae AI, melhorando significativamente sua eficiência e fluxo de trabalho. (1 reviews) - Os usuários acham a **variedade de modelos** da Trae AI mais barata, com qualidade e desempenho comparáveis aos concorrentes. (1 reviews) - Os usuários acham que o Trae AI é **rápido e eficiente** , oferecendo excelente desempenho a um preço mais baixo do que os concorrentes. (1 reviews) - Disponibilidade de Suporte (1 reviews) - Economia de tempo (1 reviews) **What users dislike:** - Os usuários frequentemente enfrentam **codificação ruim** com o Trae AI, resultando em soluções complicadas e problemas de código inexplicáveis. (2 reviews) - Os usuários expressam frustração com o **suporte limitado de idiomas** , pois as respostas são atrasadas e frequentemente em chinês. (1 reviews) - Os usuários experimentam **suporte ao cliente ruim** com atrasos e respostas automatizadas, impactando negativamente sua satisfação com o Trae AI. (1 reviews) ## Trae AI Reviews ### 1. AI based IDE **Rating:** 4.0/5.0 stars **Reviewed by:** Luca P. | Chief Operations Officer DEQUA Studio | Formerly CTO in MarTech, Marketing e Publicidade, Médio Porte (51-1000 emp.) **Reviewed Date:** May 26, 2026 **O que você mais gosta em Trae AI?** The dual-mode setup is what made TRAE stick with me after I stopped opening Cursor. IDE mode behaves like a VS Code fork with a strong agent panel beside the editor, and SOLO mode hands the whole development loop over to an autonomous agent that scaffolds, writes, runs, and iterates while I watch. The toggle between the two is what matters. I start a project in SOLO when I want a scaffold off a brief, then drop into IDE mode the moment I need to hand-edit something or follow a debug thread. Most agentic tools force you to commit to one posture. TRAE lets the posture shift with the task, which is closer to how I actually work. Builder, the in-IDE agent, is the part I open every working day. I describe a feature with the level of detail a junior dev would need (something like "add a settings page that persists user preferences in localStorage, with a toggle for dark mode and a select for language"), and Builder plans the change, edits the files it needs to edit, runs the dev server, and shows me the result in the in-app preview without my hand leaving the keyboard. The preview tab is the small touch that pulled me in. Other tools dump generated code into my editor and leave verification to me. TRAE shows me the page rendering while it works, which means I catch a bad assumption in seconds rather than after a manual run. SOLO mode goes further than I expected from something this cheap. I gave it a brief for a small internal tool last month, a simple form that posts to a Supabase table with auth, and it produced a working app, deployed, in a single multi-step run. The model planned the schema, wrote the migrations, wired the front end, and ran through enough of its own test loop that the first version actually loaded. I have done this exercise enough times with other agents to know how rare that is. It is not magic. SOLO still hallucinates the occasional library name and needs me to step in when a model loses the thread, but the rate at which it gets a v0 across the line is meaningfully ahead of what I was getting from a Cursor agent or a Cline-plus-BYOK setup six months ago. Free access to premium models is the part that still surprises me when I open the model picker. Claude 4 Sonnet, GPT-4o, DeepSeek R1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4.1, all available without an API key, all included in a free tier that is not crippled in the usual ways. The autocomplete allowance covers a working week of normal use comfortably, and the chat and Builder usage is more generous than I expected from anything in this category. Even with the token-based metering that came in earlier this year, I have not hit a wall during a typical session. For a free tool to put Claude in my hands at all is unusual. For it to put Claude inside an agent loop with MCP support, in an editor that does not feel like a downgrade from VS Code, is closer to genuinely uncommon. Custom agents are where TRAE crosses from useful into shapeable to how I work. I can define an agent with its own system prompt, its own allowed tools, and its own MCP servers, then invoke it by name. I keep one called Debug that has terminal access, browser inspector tools, and a tight system prompt that tells it to read logs before suggesting code changes. Another one called Refactor has no terminal access at all and is constrained to read-and-suggest behavior, which I use when I am pairing with the agent rather than letting it drive. The ability to enforce these constraints by agent rather than per-conversation removes a lot of the negotiation that other tools require ("don't run anything, just suggest" repeated every session). The Builder with MCP variant takes the same idea further by dynamically calling whichever MCP server fits the current task, which I have come to rely on for things like database queries during development and Supabase admin operations. In-app preview deserves its own line. I have used enough AI coding tools that ship code I have to verify in a separate browser tab to appreciate what TRAE does here. The preview lives in the same window, refreshes on save, and the agent can read what is on the screen and the console output to debug a runtime error without me having to copy-paste a stack trace back into chat. On a recent build I left the agent running with auto-run on, watched it hit a CSS bug in the preview, read the computed styles, and patch the offending file without any prompt from me. The loop is closed where it needs to be closed. MCP support is mature enough that I have stopped writing one-off integrations. Adding a server is a config edit and a restart, and the agent will pull tools from any server I have configured and combine them inside a single task. I use the Supabase server most days, a filesystem server when I am moving things around outside the editor, and a couple of custom ones I wrote for internal tooling. The Builder with MCP mode chooses tools dynamically rather than forcing me to spell out the call, which is the right design for tools whose value is in being available without ceremony. Interface polish is the quiet selling point. If you have used VS Code you will be productive in TRAE inside the first hour. Settings are in the same place, keybindings transfer, the extensions you would expect work. The agent panel sits on the right, the preview slides in below it when relevant, and the model picker is a dropdown rather than a menu safari. The UI is the part of TRAE most often praised in the community, and after several months I understand why. It is the kind of polish that disappears when you are using it, which is what good UI is supposed to do. The pricing structure works in TRAE's favor too. The free tier is enough for solo developers and small side projects, the Lite plan at a few dollars a month is genuinely cheap for a primary IDE, and Pro at roughly ten dollars sits well below Cursor at twenty. I run on Pro because I want the larger token allocation for SOLO runs, but I would not have hesitated on Lite if I were doing lighter agent work. The cost ladder rewards the way developers actually consume these tools rather than locking core features behind a single high tier. **O que você não gosta em Trae AI?** Pricing predictability is the one thing I would change. The shift to token-based metering earlier this year was a sensible move in principle, but in practice it makes it harder to know in advance whether a long SOLO run is going to eat a noticeable chunk of my monthly allocation or pass without me noticing. I find myself watching usage more closely than I would like, particularly on tasks that involve a lot of file reads or back-and-forth with a frontier model. A clearer in-editor estimate of what a given task is likely to cost before it runs would solve most of the friction. Right now I track it after the fact, which is the wrong direction. Support is the other rough edge, and it lines up with what I have seen in community discussions. When I have written in with an actual issue, the turnaround has been slower than I would expect from a paid tool, and the early replies have occasionally come through in a way that suggests the queue is being worked by an automated layer that is not yet good enough to answer the questions a developer would ask. I have always gotten an answer in the end, and the product itself has not failed me in a way that left me stuck without a workaround. But the support experience is the part of TRAE that feels most like a younger company than the rest of the product does. The fix here is partly hiring, partly tooling, and there is no shortcut. Context handling on very large codebases is where I have hit the most concrete technical limit. On a small to medium project the agent maintains context fine across a session. On a larger codebase, somewhere past a certain file count, I start seeing the agent forget files it touched earlier in the same conversation, which costs me a re-prompt and sometimes a partial redo. I have worked around this by being deliberate about what I include in a task ("only modify the files in /src/components/auth, do not touch anything else") and by breaking larger tasks into clearly scoped subtasks. The workaround is fine, but it is a workaround, and a smarter long-context retrieval layer would let me skip it. The privacy posture is worth a note for anyone evaluating the tool. TRAE is a ByteDance product, the telemetry is meaningful by default, and the privacy mode the team has added since I started using it is the right move but not yet a complete answer. For my own work this is acceptable, because the projects I run through TRAE are either open source or low-sensitivity client work, and the local-first storage model keeps the code on my machine. For anyone with stricter compliance requirements, or anyone whose employer has a position on ByteDance tools, this is the field that decides whether you can use TRAE at all. The product team is clearly aware of the concern and is iterating on it, but it is the kind of trade-off that does not go away through better engineering alone. The occasional over-engineering from the agent is worth flagging too. When I am working with Gemini as the backing model in particular, I will sometimes ask for a simple fix and get back a multi-file refactor that pulls in abstractions I did not ask for. The fix is to either re-prompt with a stricter scope or switch models for the task. It is not a deal-breaker, but it is the kind of behavior that means I do not yet leave the agent fully unsupervised on anything I care about shipping. **Que problemas Trae AI está resolvendo e como isso está beneficiando você?** The core problem it addresses is the cost of switching between writing code and asking an AI to write code. Before TRAE, my workflow involved an editor, a separate chat window pointed at a model, copy-paste in both directions, and a browser tab for whatever the page actually looked like. Each switch was small. Together they fragmented every task. TRAE folds the model, the agent, the preview, and the editor into one window, and the friction that used to slow down a feature reduces to the time it actually takes the model to think. The before-state was a session that felt busy without being productive. The after-state is the same task done in less time with fewer dropped threads. Prototyping has changed shape because of SOLO mode. I get a lot of requests, internal and client, that boil down to "can you stand up a quick version of this so we can see what we're talking about." Before, that meant a half-day of scaffolding before the interesting work could start. Now I describe the prototype, let SOLO run, and spend that half-day shaping what came out instead of building it from zero. The cost-per-prototype has dropped to the point where I will spin one up to test an idea I would previously have left as a paragraph in a doc. The result is more concrete conversations earlier in a project, which is a better way to work. Agent workflows are no longer a side project. Six months ago, building a custom agent for a specific task in my pipeline meant choosing between writing it from scratch against an API, configuring a third-party agent framework, or living with whatever defaults a closed tool gave me. TRAE's custom agents make the third option roughly as flexible as the first, without the maintenance overhead. I now have a small library of agents tuned for the tasks I do most: one for code review on pull requests, one for writing migration files from a description, one for spinning up internal tooling, and one for triaging error logs. The marginal cost of adding a new one is low enough that I add them when I notice a repeated pattern in my work, rather than when I have an afternoon free. The model question has effectively gone away. Choosing between Claude, GPT-4o, and Gemini used to mean choosing a subscription. Inside TRAE it is a dropdown. The benefit is not only cost. It is being able to use the right model for the task without thinking about it, picking Claude for a careful refactor, GPT-4o for a fast scaffold, Gemini when I want a second opinion on a tricky design choice. The friction of swapping models used to push me to standardize on one. Now I match the model to the work, which is the way it should have been all along. Debugging through an agent is the unexpected benefit. I expected TRAE to be a coding assistant. What I did not expect was to use it as a runtime debugger as often as I do. Auto-run mode plus the in-app preview means the agent can reproduce the issue, read the logs, and propose a fix in a single loop, with me reviewing rather than driving. The before-state was a developer chasing a bug through console.log calls and stack traces. The after-state is the developer reviewing what the agent already found. This is not a substitute for understanding the bug, but it is a faster way of getting to the point where understanding the bug is possible. MCP has turned external tools into first-class members of my agent's toolkit, rather than things I tab over to manually. Pulling a record from the database, checking a deployment status, reading a Slack thread for a spec, these all happen inside the same agent loop. The benefit is keeping context where the work is. Every tab switch I do not have to make is a chance to stay in the problem I am solving, and TRAE removes more of those than any other tool I have used. The cost ladder solves a budget problem too. Running multiple AI subscriptions for a freelance practice gets expensive fast, and the constant calculus of which one to keep this month is a tax on focus. TRAE at ten dollars covers what used to take three separate tools, which means I can hand a license to a junior collaborator on a client engagement without having a conversation about who pays for which model. That kind of simplicity is undervalued in tooling decisions, and it has saved me real time at the start of new projects. ### 2. A interface de usuário de classe mundial e os recursos úteis do Trae continuam melhorando **Rating:** 4.5/5.0 stars **Reviewed by:** Himanshu J. | Founder, Tecnologia da Informação e Serviços, Pequena Empresa (50 ou menos emp.) **Reviewed Date:** April 03, 2026 **O que você mais gosta em Trae AI?** Trae é o melhor IDE em termos de interface de usuário. Ele inclui vários recursos úteis, como uma pré-visualização no aplicativo e agentes de uso de computador integrados, e a recente atualização Solo 3.0 o tornou ainda melhor. **O que você não gosta em Trae AI?** Os preços são muito imprevisíveis e não ter modelos Claude são as principais desvantagens disso. A comunidade parece odiar os preços também. **Que problemas Trae AI está resolvendo e como isso está beneficiando você?** Não resolve muito que outras ferramentas não possam, mas de qualquer forma eu uso por causa do nível gratuito que oferece. ### 3. Acelera o Desenvolvimento Atualizando o Código Diretamente em Nossa Base de Código **Rating:** 5.0/5.0 stars **Reviewed by:** Jojo p. | Software Developer, Pequena Empresa (50 ou menos emp.) **Reviewed Date:** January 21, 2026 **O que você mais gosta em Trae AI?** Eu não preciso escrever códigos complicados, como engenheiro de software a gestão do tempo é muito importante, depois de usar isso eu consigo completar tarefas 60% mais rápido, apenas diga nossos requisitos e eles darão a solução e diretamente atualizarão o código na nossa base de código. **O que você não gosta em Trae AI?** às vezes, ele fornece códigos complicados em vez de uma solução simples, especialmente quando usamos o Gemini 2.5 pro **Que problemas Trae AI está resolvendo e como isso está beneficiando você?** eu não preciso escrever código agora, se eu disser o requisito exato Trae fará a codificação ### 4. Alternativa Acessível ao Cursor com Bom Desempenho **Rating:** 4.0/5.0 stars **Reviewed by:** Ram M. | Founder, CEO, Tecnologia da Informação e Serviços, Pequena Empresa (50 ou menos emp.) **Reviewed Date:** December 04, 2025 **O que você mais gosta em Trae AI?** Mais barato que cursor e windsurf. Qualidade e desempenho de modelo comparáveis **O que você não gosta em Trae AI?** Às vezes, as alterações de código são descartadas inexplicavelmente. **Que problemas Trae AI está resolvendo e como isso está beneficiando você?** É um bom editor de código baseado no VS Code. O Builder com funcionalidade MCP é bom. Ainda não usei o Solo, mas parece bom também. ### 5. Pior experiência de suporte ao cliente **Rating:** 0.0/5.0 stars **Reviewed by:** prateek b. | Freelancer Software Developer, Pequena Empresa (50 ou menos emp.) **Reviewed Date:** January 26, 2026 **O que você mais gosta em Trae AI?** Trae é como cursor e co-piloto, mas sua equipe de suporte é muito patética. **O que você não gosta em Trae AI?** Falta de suporte profissional, eles não respondem a tempo, demoram semanas, e enquanto isso enviam e-mails automáticos em chinês. **Que problemas Trae AI está resolvendo e como isso está beneficiando você?** Codificação, programação em pares com IA - [View Trae AI pricing details and edition comparison](https://www.g2.com/pt/products/trae-ai/reviews?section=pricing&secure%5Bexpires_at%5D=2026-05-27+05%3A46%3A58+-0500&secure%5Bsession_id%5D=138dec4e-cdb7-4399-be12-e63a7a373376&secure%5Btoken%5D=7303282173cbef51eeb8705366c3527b92fee46444df9bad419492c81143afbf&format=llm_user) ## Trae AI Integrations - [Supabase](https://www.g2.com/pt/products/supabase-supabase/reviews) ## Trae AI Features **Funcionalidade** - Precisão - Processamento de entrada - Interface - Qualidade do código **Apoio** - Comunidade - Cronograma de atualização - Documentação **Geração de Código por IA - IA Agente** - Integração entre sistemas - Aprendizagem Adaptativa - Interação em Linguagem Natural - Assistência Proativa - Tomada de Decisão ## Top Trae AI Alternatives - [ChatGPT](https://www.g2.com/pt/products/chatgpt/reviews) - 4.6/5.0 (2,452 reviews) - [GitLab](https://www.g2.com/pt/products/gitlab/reviews) - 4.5/5.0 (875 reviews) - [TESS AI](https://www.g2.com/pt/products/tess-ai/reviews) - 4.7/5.0 (384 reviews)