How can we improve?

With your feedback we can make our prototyping comparison tool more accurate and useful for everyone. The tool is based on a rating system that’s open to change with your input, and as the tools change over time.

If you have any suggestions of how we can improve anything, or think a tool has be rated incorrectly and want to send abuse, just let us know.

13/10/16 Update: We’ve already had a lot of great feedback via email, and are now opening this page for comments, so feedback can be public ?. Of course you can still send feedback via this email form if you prefer.

10 responses on “How can we improve?


    Summary of feedback:
    * Move and atomic at the start of the layer interaction tools section, as both are layers oriented, have layer interactions, components etc – totally different from tools like InVision
    * Add Affinity designer, Macaw,, Pixate


    ?Add Keynote
    ?Add Flinto and Webflow *09/10/16 Flinto added
    ?Add ProtoPie *Added 01/10/16

  3. pimgeek

    Please consider adding this to your toolbox:
    Mobile prototyping tool without headache, Create your app prototype in 10 minutes


    Please consider TestLab for your list of tools. Check out . Merry christmas ?

  5. Hans Gerwitz ?

    Sharing only as food for thought: when we considered tools we ended up finding two dimensions most meaningful. They map roughly to your “fidelity” and “interactivity”. It might be nice if this tool allowed comparing 2 “blue” dimensions.

    (See also and )

  6. Alex


    Great work, but there are some changes I’d like to suggest:

    1. The level of fidelity that Justinmind can reach is very high. It doesn’t simply allow “higher aesthetic control + visual outcomes”, it’s also “great for final stage interactions”.

    2. User Testing: Justinmind is integrated with all the main user testing tools on the market, it’s not fair to say it has “limited digital support for user testing”.

    3. Sharing, feedback, and teamwork features in Justinmind are very advanced.

    4. It’s possible to make a one-time purchase to buy Justinmind (a perpetual license)

    5. Justinmind has a free forever version too:

  7. Josef Richter

    Not sure what exactly you mean by “interactivity”, but I know for sure that is way ahead of Marvel or InVision for example.

    Both Marvel and InVision have very limited micro-interactions within single screen. Whereas in you can do pretty much everything, even including animation curves, etc. The only tool where you can do more than in is probably Framer, but it’s also much more labourious.

  8. maak

    My 2 cents…or IMHO:

    Now Figma can create some basic click through prototypes (clickable hot-spots that link to frames). And its definitely faster to use than XD IMO

    I don’t agree that Axure is slow and is in the middle for interactivity. You can make very simple testable prototypes fast and with small learning curve. You can also create a huge amount of complex interactivity without code and just about anything with code. Are you confusing animation control with interactivity? Axure is also available as a one time purchase.

    Also suggest there is a filter for apps not yet available or in beta. When Choosing an app for professional use, particularly if you are shifting all staff and projects to a new platform, you want to know the maturity of the software and that it’s going to be around a while.

    I know it’s difficult to rate different apps on the same things eg. paper prototypes can be fast, yet are slow and clumsy if you take iteration and sharing into consideration.

  9. Jim Collinson

    Opening new windows/tabs when clicking on apps on is frustrating and not terribly good practice.

    And to make things worse, hitting a call to action button such as “Get App X” on the subsequent page opens another tab. Tab hell!

Leave a Reply