Comparison

Lucid Train compared with Eraser.

The closest competitor in intent, and the clearest split in approach: hosted and collaborative on one side, local and repository-aware on the other.

Download for macOS

v0.1.33 · .dmg · Apple Silicon & Intel

Signed & notarized by Apple · opens without a Gatekeeper warning

sha256 698955a0187bc039f4c74f5d05a9f10fbb27376a45788a0a241d1326b73873c7

Download for Windows instead

$curl -fsSL https://lucidtrain.com/install.sh | sh

What Eraser is better at

Real-time collaboration, which a desktop app does not attempt. Its diagram-as-code syntax is clean and version-controllable, the DiagramGPT entry point is genuinely good at turning a prompt into a reasonable first diagram, and being browser-based means a teammate opens a link rather than installing anything. For a team that diagrams together on a call, that matters more than most feature comparisons.

Where Lucid Train is different

It reads your repository rather than your prompt. Pointing it at a codebase and having it survey manifests, entry points and the import graph is a different starting point from describing what you think the system looks like. It also runs locally: with an Ollama model nothing leaves the machine, which is decisive for source code in a number of organisations.

Diagram to code

Eraser goes from text to diagram. Lucid Train also goes the other way: the canvas becomes a markdown specification and starts a coding turn that returns reviewable diffs. Whether that matters depends on whether you want the diagram to be a document or an instruction.

Cost shape

Eraser is a per-seat subscription with a free tier. Lucid Train is $3 a month for the desktop app with a free CLI, and model usage is billed by whichever provider you choose, or costs nothing if you run locally. For a large team the per-seat difference compounds; for one engineer both are inexpensive.

Side by side

	Lucid Train	Eraser
Where it runs	Desktop app, macOS and Windows	Browser
Real-time collaboration	No	Yes
Generates from a repository	Yes	Limited
Generates from a prompt	Yes	Yes, DiagramGPT
Runs fully offline	Yes, with local models	No
Source code leaves your machine	No, with a local model	Yes
Diagram to code	Yes	No
Diagram as code syntax	Semantic graph, editable	Yes, its own DSL
Price	CLI free; desktop $3/month	Free tier, then per seat

FAQ

Questions

Is Lucid Train an Eraser alternative?

For generating and maintaining architecture diagrams from a codebase, yes, and it adds local execution and the diagram-to-code direction. For collaborative editing it is not a replacement.

Does Eraser send my code anywhere?

It is a hosted product, so anything you paste or connect goes to their servers under their terms. That is normal for browser tools and is exactly the constraint a local-first tool removes.

Which produces better diagrams?

Both produce good ones from a prompt. The difference shows on an existing codebase, where reading the actual repository beats describing it from memory, and in editing, where a solver-computed layout stays clean as the diagram grows.

Affiliation

Lucid Train is an independent product and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to the product described on this page. All names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Pricing and features were checked on 19 August 2026 and change without notice; check the vendor's own site before deciding.

Lucid Train vs draw.io
One is a free, excellent, entirely manual editor. The other generates the diagram and solves the layout. They are not really competing for the same hour of your day.
Lucid Train vs Mermaid
Mermaid's advantage is that it lives in your Markdown and renders on GitHub. Its limitation is that you are still authoring the diagram by hand, in text.
Lucid Train vs Excalidraw
This is the least adversarial comparison on the site, because Lucid Train's diagrams are Excalidraw scenes.
Lucid Train vs Miro
Miro is a meeting tool that can hold a diagram. This is a diagram tool that cannot hold a meeting.