Design teams don’t all outgrow (or outspend) the same way. Today’s Figma alternatives range from native, offline-first editors to code-backed prototyping platforms and ultra-lightweight wireframing tools—each optimized for a different kind of speed.
Sketch vs Figma
Sketch stands out as a native macOS-first design environment that appeals to teams who prefer desktop performance and local workflows over a browser-centric toolchain. It’s especially compelling if your product work closely follows Apple patterns—Sketch users can even start from Apple’s own building blocks via the
official macOS UI Library.
Best for
- Mac-based product design teams who want a native editor experience
- Designers building Apple-flavored UI who benefit from first-party macOS components
Where it differs from Figma
- Sketch is often treated as a better fit when you’re doing something more artistic, while Figma remains the default pick for multiplayer UI work in many teams
UXPin vs Figma
UXPin differentiates itself by leaning into “design that behaves like the real product,” especially when teams want interactive prototypes that map closely to implementation patterns. It’s also built with cross-functional adoption in mind—UXPin explicitly positions its value around product-wide workflows, not just design, emphasizing that
whole product teams could benefit from this integration.
Best for
- Product orgs that want tighter alignment between design and engineering workflows
- Teams prioritizing realistic, interaction-heavy prototypes for reviews and sign-off
Where it differs from Figma
- UXPin tends to shine when the goal is narrowing the gap between “prototype” and “build,” rather than optimizing for the broad, all-in-one design hub experience
ProtoPie vs Figma
ProtoPie is the specialist pick when prototyping needs to go beyond clickable screens into more advanced, production-like interactions. It’s a frequent add-on in workflows where Figma is the canvas for UI layout, but the team needs a tool that can convincingly simulate behavior—one designer puts it plainly:
tools like Lovable.dev or ProtoPie come in when you need to show how a product “thinks,” not just how it looks.
Best for
- Designers prototyping complex interactions (logic-heavy flows, rich microinteractions, device-like behavior)
- Teams who already design in Figma but need a dedicated interaction engine for high-fidelity testing
Where it differs from Figma
Balsamiq vs Figma
Balsamiq wins by intentionally staying low-fidelity. Where Figma can invite pixel-perfect debates early, Balsamiq keeps teams focused on structure, hierarchy, and flow—fast. It’s a great way to align stakeholders quickly, then hand off the validated concept to higher-fidelity tooling.
Best for
- Product managers and early-stage teams who need rapid alignment before “real design” starts
- Workshops where speed and clarity matter more than visual polish
Where it differs from Figma
- Balsamiq is purpose-built for wireframing and early ideation; it’s not trying to replace a full UI design system workflow
Lunacy vs Figma
Lunacy is a pragmatic alternative for teams that want a native, cross-platform vector editor experience and prefer built-in capabilities over extending via marketplaces. Its team has been transparent that
plugins are on hold, which can be appealing if you’d rather rely on core functionality (and less appealing if your workflow depends on a large plugin ecosystem).
Best for
- Teams that want a straightforward, cross-platform design tool experience
- Orgs that prefer fewer moving parts (less dependency on third-party plugins)
Where it differs from Figma
- Lunacy’s stance on extensibility is more conservative, while Figma’s culture is heavily community/plugin driven—making the choice largely about how much you want your workflow to depend on an ecosystem
