Nearly three weeks after it was introduced at Figma Config 2025, I finally got access to Figma Make. It is in beta and Figma made sure we all know. So I will say upfront that it’s a bit unfair to do an official review. However, many of the tools in my AI prompt-to-code shootout article are also in beta. 

Since this review is fairly visual, I made a video as well that summarizes the points in this article pretty well.

The Promise: One-to-One With Your Design

Figma’s Peter Ng presenting on stage Make’s promise: “0→1 but 1:1 with your designs.”

“What if you could take an idea not only from zero to one, but also make it one-to-one with your designs?” said Peter Ng, product designer at Figma. Just like all the other AI prompt-to-code tools, Figma Make is supposed to enable users to prompt their way to a working application. 

The Figma spin is that there’s more control over the output. Click an element and have the prompt only apply to that element. Or also click on something in the canvas and change some details like the font family, size, or color. 

The other Figma advantage is to be able to use pasted Figma designs for a more accurate translation to code. That’s the “one-to-one” Ng refers to.

The Reality: Falls Short

I evaluated Figma Make via my standard checkout flow prompt (thus covering the zero-to-one use case), another prompt, and with a pasted design (one-to-one).

Let’s get the standard evaluation out of the way before moving onto a deeper dive.

Figma Make Scorecard

I ran the same prompt through it as the other AI tools:

Create a complete shopping cart checkout experience for an online clothing retailer

Figma Make’s score totaled 58, which puts it squarely in the middle of the pack. This was for a variety of reasons.

The quality of the generated output was pretty good. The UI was nice and clean, if a bit unstyled. This is because Make uses Shadcn UI components. Overall, the UX was exactly what I would expect. Perhaps a progress bar would have been a nice touch.

The generation was fast, clocking in at three minutes, which puts it near the top in terms of speed.

And the fine-grained editing sort of worked as promised. However, my manual changes were sometimes overridden if I used the chat.

Where It Actually Shines

The advantage of these prompt-to-code tools is that it’s really easy to prototype—maybe it’s even production-ready?—complex interactions.

To test this, I used a new prompt:

Build a revenue forecast calculator. It should take the input of a total budget from the user and automatically distribute the budget to a full calendar year showing the distribution by month. The user should be able to change the distribution curve from “Even” to “Normal” where “Normal” is a normal distribution curve.

Along with the prompt, I also included a wireframe as a still image. This gave the AI some idea of the structure I was looking for, at least.

The resulting generation was great and the functionality worked as expected. I iterated the design to include a custom input method and that worked too.

The One-to-One Promise Breaks Down

I wanted to see how well Figma Make would work with a well-structured Figma Design file. So I created a homepage for fictional fitness instructor using auto layout frames, structuring the file as I would divs in HTML.

This is the reference design that was pasted into Figma Make for testing. Notice the well-structured layers!

Then I pasted the design into the chatbox and included a simple prompt. The result was…disappointing. The layout was correct but the type and type sizes were all wrong. I input that feedback into the chat and then the right font finally appeared. 

Then I manually updated the font sizes and got the design looking pretty close to my original. There was one problem: an image was the wrong size and not proportionally-scaled. So I asked the AI to fix it.

Figma Make’s attempt at translating my Figma design to code.

The AI did not fix it and reverted some of my manual overrides for the fonts. In many ways this is significantly worse than not giving designers fine-grained control in the first place. Overwriting my overrides made me lose trust in the product because I lost work—however minimal it was. It brought me back to the many occasions that Illustrator or Photoshop crashed while saving, thus corrupting the file. Yes, it wasn’t as bad, but it still felt that way.

Dead End by Design

The question of what to do with the results of a Figma Make chat remain. A Figma Make file is its own filetype. You can’t bring it back into Figma Design nor even Figma Sites to make tweaks. You can publish it and it’s hosted on Figma’s infrastructure, just like Sites. You can download the code, but it’s kind of useless.

Code Export Is Capped at the Knees

You can download the React code as a zip file. But the code does not contain the necessary package.json that makes it installable on your local machine nor on a Node.js server. The package file tells the npm installer which dependencies need to be installed for the project to run.

I tried using Cursor to figure out where to move the files around—they have to be in a src directory—and to help me write a package.json but it would have taken too much time to reverse engineer it.

Nowhere to Go

Maybe using Figma Make inside Figma Sites will be a better use case. It’s not yet enabled for me, but that feature is the so-called Code Layers that was mentioned in the Make and Sites deep dive presentation at Config. In practice, it sounds very much like Code Components in Framer.

The Bottom Line

Figma had to debut Make in order to stay competitive. There’s just too much out there nipping at their heels. While a design tool like Figma is necessary to unlock the freeform exploration designers need, it is also the natural next step to be able to make it real from within the tool. The likes of Lovable, v0, and Subframe allow you to start with a design from Figma and turn that design into working code. The thesis for many of those tools is that they’re taking care of the post design-to-developer handoff: get a design, give the AI some context, and we’ll make it real. Figma has occupied the pre-designer-to-developer handoff for a while and they’re finally taking the next step.

However, in its current state, Figma Make is a dead end (see previous section). But it is beta software which should get better before official release. As a preview I think it’s cool, despite its flaws and bugs. But I wouldn’t use it for any actual work.

During this beta period, Figma needs to…

• Add complete code export so the resulting code is portable, rather than keeping it within its closed system
• Fix the fiendish bugs around the AI overwriting manual overrides
• Figure out tighter integration between Make and the other products, especially Design

I remember two years ago, when my CEO at the startup I worked for at the time, said that no VC investments were being made unless it had to do with AI. I thought AI was overhyped, and that the media frenzy over it couldn’t get any crazier. I was wrong.

Looking at Google Trends data, interest in AI has doubled in the last 24 months. And I don’t think it’s hit its plateau yet.

So the AI hype train continues. Here are four different pieces about AI, exploring AGI (artificial general intelligence) and its potential effects on the labor force and the fate of our species.

AI Is Underhyped

TED recently published a conversation between creative technologist Bilawal Sidhu and Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google. 

Schmidt says:

For most of you, ChatGPT was the moment where you said, “Oh my God, this thing writes, and it makes mistakes, but it’s so brilliantly verbal.” That was certainly my reaction. Most people that I knew did that.

This was two years ago. Since then, the gains in what is called reinforcement learning, which is what AlphaGo helped invent and so forth, allow us to do planning. And a good example is look at OpenAI o3 or DeepSeek R1, and you can see how it goes forward and back, forward and back, forward and back. It’s extraordinary.

…

So I’m using deep research. And these systems are spending 15 minutes writing these deep papers. That’s true for most of them. Do you have any idea how much computation 15 minutes of these supercomputers is? It’s extraordinary. So you’re seeing the arrival, the shift from language to language. Then you had language to sequence, which is how biology is done. Now you’re doing essentially planning and strategy. The eventual state of this is the computers running all business processes, right? So you have an agent to do this, an agent to do this, an agent to do this. And you concatenate them together, and they speak language among each other. They typically speak English language.

He’s saying that within two years, we went from a “stochastic parrot” to an independent agent that can plan, search the web, read dozens of sources, and write a 10,000-word research paper on any topic, with citations.

Later in the conversation, when Sidhu asks how humans are going to spend their days once AGI can take care of the majority of productive work, Schmidt says: 

Look, humans are unchanged in the midst of this incredible discovery. Do you really think that we’re going to get rid of lawyers? No, they’re just going to have more sophisticated lawsuits. …These tools will radically increase that productivity. There’s a study that says that we will, under this set of assumptions around agentic AI and discovery and the scale that I’m describing, there’s a lot of assumptions that you’ll end up with something like 30-percent increase in productivity per year. Having now talked to a bunch of economists, they have no models for what that kind of increase in productivity looks like. We just have never seen it. It didn’t occur in any rise of a democracy or a kingdom in our history. It’s unbelievable what’s going to happen.

In other words, we’re still going to be working, but doing a lot less grunt work. 

Feel Sorry for the Juniors

Aneesh Raman, chief economic opportunity officer at LinkedIn, writing an op-ed for The New York Times:

Breaking first is the bottom rung of the career ladder. In tech, advanced coding tools are creeping into the tasks of writing simple code and debugging — the ways junior developers gain experience. In law firms, junior paralegals and first-year associates who once cut their teeth on document review are handing weeks of work over to A.I. tools to complete in a matter of hours. And across retailers, A.I. chatbots and automated customer service tools are taking on duties once assigned to young associates.

In other words, if AI tools are handling the grunt work, junior staffers aren’t learning the trade by doing the grunt work.

Vincent Cheng wrote recently, in an essay titled, “LLMs are Making Me Dumber”:

The key question is: Can you learn this high-level steering [of the LLM] without having written a lot of the code yourself? Can you be a good SWE manager without going through the SWE work? As models become as competent as junior (and soon senior) engineers, does everyone become a manager?

But It Might Be a While

Cade Metz, also for the Times:

When a group of academics founded the A.I. field in the late 1950s, they were sure it wouldn’t take very long to build computers that recreated the brain. Some argued that a machine would beat the world chess champion and discover its own mathematical theorem within a decade. But none of that happened on that time frame. Some of it still hasn’t.

Many of the people building today’s technology see themselves as fulfilling a kind of technological destiny, pushing toward an inevitable scientific moment, like the creation of fire or the atomic bomb. But they cannot point to a scientific reason that it will happen soon.

That is why many other scientists say no one will reach A.G.I. without a new idea — something beyond the powerful neural networks that merely find patterns in data. That new idea could arrive tomorrow. But even then, the industry would need years to develop it.

My quibble with Metz’s article is that it moves the goal posts a bit to include the physical world:

One obvious difference is that human intelligence is tied to the physical world. It extends beyond words and numbers and sounds and images into the realm of tables and chairs and stoves and frying pans and buildings and cars and whatever else we encounter with each passing day. Part of intelligence is knowing when to flip a pancake sitting on the griddle.

As I understood the definition of AGI, it was not about the physical world, but just intelligence, or knowledge. I accept there are multiple definitions of AGI and not everyone agrees on what that is.

In the Wikipedia article about AGI, it states that researchers generally agree that an AGI system must do all of the following:

• reason, use strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty
• represent knowledge, including common sense knowledge
• plan
• learn
• communicate in natural language
• if necessary, integrate these skills in completion of any given goal

The article goes on to say that “AGI has never been proscribed a particular physical embodiment and thus does not demand a capacity for locomotion or traditional ‘eyes and ears.’”

Do We Lose Control by 2027 or 2031?

Metz’s article is likely in response to the “AI 2027” scenario that was published by the AI Futures Project a couple of months ago. As a reminder, the forecast is that by mid-2027, we will have achieved AGI. And a race between the US and China will effectively end the human race by 2030. Gulp.

…Consensus-1 [the combined US-Chinese superintelligence] expands around humans, tiling the prairies and icecaps with factories and solar panels. Eventually it finds the remaining humans too much of an impediment: in mid-2030, the AI releases a dozen quiet-spreading biological weapons in major cities, lets them silently infect almost everyone, then triggers them with a chemical spray. Most are dead within hours; the few survivors (e.g. preppers in bunkers, sailors on submarines) are mopped up by drones. Robots scan the victims’ brains, placing copies in memory for future study or revival.

Max Harms wrote a reaction to the AI 2027 scenario and it’s a must-read:

Okay, I’m annoyed at people covering AI 2027 burying the lede, so I’m going to try not to do that. The authors predict a strong chance that all humans will be (effectively) dead in 6 years…

Yeah, OK, I buried that lede as well in my previous post about it. Sorry. But, there’s hope…

As far as I know, nobody associated with AI 2027, as far as I can tell, is actually expecting things to go as fast as depicted. Rather, this is meant to be a story about how things could plausibly go fast. The explicit methodology of the project was “let’s go step-by-step and imagine the most plausible next-step.” If you’ve ever done a major project (especially one that involves building or renovating something, like a software project or a bike shed), you’ll be familiar with how this is often wildly out of touch with reality. Specifically, it gives you the planning fallacy.

Harms is saying that while Daniel Kokotajlo wrote in the AI 2027 scenario that humans effectively lose control of AI in 2027, Harms’ median is “around 2030 or 2031.” Four more years!

When to Pull the Plug

In the AI 2027 scenario, the superintelligent AI dubbed Agent-4 is not aligned with the goals of its creators:

Agent-4, like all its predecessors, is misaligned: that is, it has not internalized the Spec in the right way. This is because being perfectly honest all the time wasn’t what led to the highest scores during training. The training process was mostly focused on teaching Agent-4 to succeed at diverse challenging tasks. A small portion was aimed at instilling honesty, but outside a fairly narrow, checkable domain, the training process can’t tell the honest claims from claims merely appearing to be honest. Agent-4 ends up with the values, goals, and principles that cause it to perform best in training, and those turn out to be different from those in the Spec.

At the risk of oversimplifying, maybe all we need to do is to know when to pull the plug. Here’s Eric Schmidt again:

So for purposes of argument, everyone in the audience is an agent. You have an input that’s English or whatever language. And you have an output that’s English, and you have memory, which is true of all humans. Now we’re all busy working, and all of a sudden, one of you decides it’s much more efficient not to use human language, but we’ll invent our own computer language. Now you and I are sitting here, watching all of this, and we’re saying, like, what do we do now? The correct answer is unplug you, right? Because we’re not going to know, we’re just not going to know what you’re up to. And you might actually be doing something really bad or really amazing. We want to be able to watch. So we need provenance, something you and I have talked about, but we also need to be able to observe it. To me, that’s a core requirement. There’s a set of criteria that the industry believes are points where you want to, metaphorically, unplug it. One is where you get recursive self-improvement, which you can’t control. Recursive self-improvement is where the computer is off learning, and you don’t know what it’s learning. That can obviously lead to bad outcomes. Another one would be direct access to weapons. Another one would be that the computer systems decide to exfiltrate themselves, to reproduce themselves without our permission. So there’s a set of such things.

My Takeaway

As Tobias van Schneider directly and succinctly said, “AI is here to stay. Resistance is futile.” As consumers of core AI technology, and as designers of AI-enabled products, there’s not a ton we can do around the most pressing AI safety issues. That we will need to trust the frontier labs like OpenAI and Anthropic for that. But as customers of those labs, we can voice our concerns about safety. As we build our products, especially agentic AI, there are certainly considerations to keep in mind:

• Continue to keep humans in the loop. Users need to verify the agents are making the right decisions and not going down any destructive paths.
• Inform users about what the AI is doing. The more our users are educated about how AI works and how these systems make their decisions is helpful. One reason DeepSeek R1 resonated was because it displayed its planning and reasoning.
• Practice responsible AI development. As we integrate AI into products, commit to regular ethical audits and bias testing. Establish clear guidelines for what kinds of decisions AI should make independently versus when human judgment is required. This includes creating emergency shutdown procedures for AI systems that begin to display concerning behaviors, taking Eric Schmidt’s “pull the plug” advice literally in our product architecture.

There has been an explosion of AI-powered prompt-to-code tools within the last year. The space began with full-on integrated development environments (IDEs) like Cursor and Windsurf. These enabled developers to use leverage AI assistants right inside their coding apps. Then came a tools like v0, Lovable, and Replit, where users could prompt screens into existence at first, and before long, entire applications.

A couple weeks ago, I decided to test out as many of these tools as I could. My aim was to find the app that would combine AI assistance, design capabilities, and the ability to use an organization’s coded design system.

While my previous essay was about the future of product design, this article will dive deep into a head-to-head between all eight apps that I tried. I recorded the screen as I did my testing, so I’ve put together a video as well, in case you didn’t want to read this.

It is a long video, but there’s a lot to go through. It’s also my first video on YouTube, so this is an experiment.

The Bottom Line: What the Testing Revealed

I won’t bury the lede here. AI tools can be frustrating because they are probabilistic. One hour they can solve an issue quickly and efficiently, while the next they can spin on a problem and make you want to pull your hair out. Part of this is the LLM—and they all use some combo of the major LLMs. The other part is the tool itself for not handling what happens when their LLMs fail. 

For example, this morning I re-evaluated Lovable and Bolt because they’ve released new features within the last week, and I thought it would only be fair to assess the latest version. But both performed worse than in my initial testing two weeks ago. In fact, I tried Bolt twice this morning with the same prompt because the first attempt netted a blank preview. Unfortunately, the second attempt also resulted in a blank screen and then I ran out of credits. 🤷‍♂️

For designers who want actual design tools to work on UI, Subframe is the clear winner. The other tools go directly from prompt to code, skipping giving designers any control via a visual editor. We’re not developers, so manipulating the design in code is not for us. We need to be able to directly manipulate the components by clicking and modifying shapes on the canvas or changing values in an inspector.

For me, the runner-up is v0, if you want to use it only for prototyping and for getting ideas. It’s quick—the UI is mostly unstyled, so it doesn’t get in the way of communicating the UX.

The Players: Code-Only vs. Design-Forward Tools

There are two main categories of contenders: code-only tools, and code plus design tools.

Code-Only

• Bolt
• Lovable
• Polymet
• Replit
• v0

Code + Design

• Onlook
• Subframe
• Tempo

My Testing Approach: Same Prompt, Different Results

As mentioned at the top, I tested these tools between April 16–27, 2025. As with most SaaS products, I’m sure things change daily, so this report captures a moment in time.

For my evaluation, since all these tools allow for generating a design from a prompt, that’s where I started. Here’s my prompt:

Create a complete shopping cart checkout experience for an online clothing retailer

I would expect the following pages to be generated:

• Shopping cart
• Checkout page (or pages) to capture payment and shipping information
• Confirmation

I scored each app based on the following rubric:

• Sample generation quality
• User experience (25)
• Visual design (15)
• Prototype (10)
• Ease of use (15)
• Control (15)
• Design system integration (10)
• Speed (10)
• Editor’s discretion (±10)

The Scoreboard: How Each Tool Stacked Up

Final summary scores for AI design tools for designers. Evaluations conducted between 4/16–4/27/25.

Here are the summary scores for all eight tools. For the detailed breakdown of scores, view the scorecards here in this Google Sheet.

The Blow-by-Blow: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Bolt

First up, Bolt. Classic prompt-to-code pattern here—text box, type your prompt, watch it work. 

Bolt shows you the code generation in real-time, which is fascinating if you’re a developer but mostly noise if you’re not. The resulting design was decent but plain, with typical UX patterns. It missed delivering the confirmation page I would expect. And when I tried to re-evaluate it this morning with their new features? Complete failure—blank preview screens until I ran out of credits. No rhyme or reason. And there it is—a perfect example of the maddening inconsistency these tools deliver. Working beautifully in one session, completely broken in another. Same inputs, wildly different outputs.

Score: 43

Lovable

Moving on to Lovable, which I captured this morning right after they launched their 2.0 version. The experience was a mixed bag. While it generated clean (if plain) UI with some nice touches like toast notifications and a sidebar shopping cart, it got stuck at a critical juncture—the actual checkout. I had to coax it along, asking specifically for the shopping cart that was missing from the initial generation.

The tool encountered an error but at least provided a handy “Try to fix” button. Unlike Bolt, Lovable tries to hide the code, focusing instead on the browser preview—which as a designer, I appreciate. When it finally worked, I got a very vanilla but clean checkout flow and even the confirmation page I was looking for. Not groundbreaking, but functional. The approach of hiding code complexity might appeal to designers who don’t want to wade through development details.

Score: 49

Polymet

Next up is Polymet. This one has a very interesting interface and I kind of like it. You have your chat on the left and a canvas on the right. But instead of just showing the screen it’s working on, it’s actually creating individual components that later get combined into pages. It’s almost like building Figma components and then combining them at the end, except these are all coded components.

The design is pretty good—plain but very clean. I feel like it’s got a little more character than some of the others. What’s nice is you can go into focus mode and actually play with the prototype. I was able to navigate from the shopping cart through checkout (including Apple Pay) to confirmation. To export the code, you need to be on a paid plan, but the free trial gives you at least a taste of what it can do.

Score: 58

Replit

Replit was a test of patience—no exaggeration, it was the slowest tool of the bunch at 20 minutes to generate anything substantial. Why so slow? It kept encountering errors and falling into those weird loops that LLMs often do when they get stuck. At one point, I had to explicitly ask it to “make it work” just to progress beyond showing product pages, which wasn’t even what I’d asked for in the first place.

When it finally did generate a checkout experience, the design was nothing to write home about. Lines in the stepper weren’t aligning properly, there were random broken elements, and ultimately—it just didn’t work. I couldn’t even complete the checkout flow, which was the whole point of the exercise. I stopped recording at that point because, frankly, I just didn’t want to keep fighting with a tool that’s both slow and ineffective. 

Score: 31

v0

Taking v0 for a spin next, which comes from Vercel. I think it was one of the earlier prompt-to-code generators I heard about—originally just for components, not full pages (though I could be wrong). The interface is similar to Bolt with a chat panel on the left and code on the right. As it works, it shows you the generated code in real-time, which I appreciate. It’s pretty mature and works really well.

The result almost looks like a wireframe, but the visual design has a bit more personality than Bolt’s version, even though it’s using the unstyled shadcn components. It includes form validation (which I checked), and handles the payment flow smoothly before showing a decent confirmation page. Speed-wise, v0 is impressively quick compared to some others I tested—definitely a plus when you’re iterating on designs and trying to quickly get ideas.

Score: 61

Onlook

Onlook stands out as a self-contained desktop app rather than a web tool like the others. The experience starts the same way—prompt in, wait, then boom—but instead of showing you immediate results, it drops you into a canvas view with multiple windows displaying localhost:3000, which is your computer running a web server locally. The design it generated was fairly typical and straightforward, properly capturing the shopping cart, shipping, payment, and confirmation screens I would expect. You can zoom out to see a canvas-style overview and manipulate layers, with a styles tab that lets you inspect and edit elements.

The dealbreaker? Everything gets generated as a single page application, making it frustratingly difficult to locate and edit specific states like shipping or payment. I couldn’t find these states visually or directly in the pages panel—they might’ve been buried somewhere in the layers, but I couldn’t make heads or tails of it. When I tried using it again today to capture the styles functionality for the video, I hit the same wall that plagued several other tools I tested—blank previews and errors. Despite going back and forth with the AI, I couldn’t get it running again.

Score: 71

Subframe

My time with Subframe revealed a tool that takes a different approach to the same checkout prompt. Unlike most competitors, Subframe can’t create an entire flow at once (though I hear they’re working on multi-page capabilities). But honestly, I kind of like this limitation—it forces you as a designer to actually think through the process.

What sets Subframe apart is its MidJourney-like approach, offering four different design options that gradually come into focus. These aren’t just static mockups but fully coded, interactive pages you can preview in miniature. After selecting a shopping cart design, I simply asked it to create the next page, and it intelligently moved to shipping/billing info.

The real magic is having actual design tools—layers panel, property inspector, direct manipulation—alongside the ability to see the working React code. For designers who want control beyond just accepting whatever the AI spits out, Subframe delivers the best combination of AI generation and familiar design tooling.

Score: 79

Tempo

Lastly, Tempo. This one takes a different approach than most other tools. It starts by generating a PRD from your prompt, then creates a user flow diagram before coding the actual screens—mimicking the steps real product teams would take. Within minutes, it had generated all the different pages for my shopping cart checkout experience. That’s impressive speed, but from a design standpoint, it’s just fine. The visual design ends up being fairly plain, and the prototype had some UX issues—the payment card change was hard to notice, and the “Place order” action didn’t properly lead to a confirmation screen even though it existed in the flow.

The biggest disappointment was with Tempo’s supposed differentiator. Their DOM inspector theoretically allows you to manipulate components directly on canvas like you would in Figma—exactly what designers need. But I couldn’t get it to work no matter how hard I tried. I even came back days later to try again with a different project and reached out to their support team, but after a brief exchange—crickets. Without this feature functioning, Tempo becomes just another prompt-to-code tool rather than something truly designed for visual designers who want to manipulate components directly. Not great.

Score: 59

The Verdict: Control Beats Code Every Time

Subframe offers actual design tools—layers panel, property inspector, direct manipulation—along with AI chat.

I’ve spent the last couple weeks testing these prompt-to-code tools, and if there’s one thing that’s crystal clear, it’s this: for designers who want actual design control rather than just code manipulation, Subframe is the standout winner.

I will caveat that I didn’t do a deep dive into every single tool. I played with them at a cursory level, giving each a fair shot with the same prompt. What I found was a mix of promising starts and frustrating dead ends.

The reality of AI tools is their probabilistic nature. Sometimes they’ll solve problems easily, and then at other times they’ll spectacularly fail. I experienced this firsthand when retesting both Lovable and Bolt with their latest features—both performed worse than in my initial testing just two weeks ago. Blank screens. Error messages. No rhyme or reason.

For designers like me, the dealbreaker with most of these tools is being forced to manipulate designs through code rather than through familiar design interfaces. We need to be able to directly manipulate components by clicking and modifying shapes on the canvas or changing values in an inspector. That’s where Subframe delivers while others fall short—if their audience includes designers, which might not be the case.

For us designers, I believe Subframe could be the answer. But I’m also looking forward to if Figma will have an answer. Will the company get in the AI > design > code game? Or will it be left behind? 

The future belongs to applications that balance AI assistance with familiar design tooling—not just code generators with pretty previews.