Design
Framer
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Framer B.V. · www.framer.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Framer at a glance
- Vendor
- Framer B.V.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 1 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Framer 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Framer B.V., an Amsterdam design tool that publishes production websites, scores highest on design and prototyping (6 to 7) and collaboration and handoff (6 to 7), where judges cite documented component variants with resettable overrides, libraries whose updates propagate to every project, free commenting viewers, branching with a documented merge API, and a staging environment. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Framer B.V., an Amsterdam design tool that publishes production websites, scores highest on design and prototyping (6 to 7) and collaboration and handoff (6 to 7), where judges cite documented component variants with resettable overrides, libraries whose updates propagate to every project, free commenting viewers, branching with a documented merge API, and a staging environment. It scores lowest on file ownership and portability: the only documented export is assets and pages as JPG or PNG through the desktop app. Sovereignty sits at 2 to 3, with legal-entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure recorded as unknown and hosting described only as a global delivery network of 20 or 300+ locations. Persona-weighted totals range from 3.2 to 4.8. The split is pricing transparency, 2 to 5: mechanics are unusually clear — ten editor seats on Basic and Pro, credits of 1,000 or 3,000 per month, editors billed within 24 hours — but we found no price figure for any plan in the captured pages, and the judges divide on whether that clarity outweighs the missing figures.
Speaks for it
- Component variants with resettable overrides and libraries that push updates into every project are documented on Framer's own help pages.
- Viewers comment for free, with roles that separate view, content, design and deploy rights.
- Branching with previews, a staging environment, and a plugin API documented down to a branch-merge signature give developers a real surface.
- Plan mechanics are unusually clear: ten editor seats on Basic and Pro, credits of 1,000 or 3,000 per month shared across the workspace, and editors billed within 24 hours of being added.
- The privacy statement keeps customer personal data out of third-party model training unless expressly disclosed otherwise, and the AI notice publishes bring-your-own-model terms.
Held against it
- The only documented export is assets and pages as JPG or PNG through the desktop app, and we found no public information on whole-file export in a documented format.
- Brand governance lives in third-party marketplace plugins carrying limited licences, with no public information on a first-party central brand library or rights and expiry metadata on assets.
- We found no price figure for any plan, add-on or credit pack in the captured pages, so an annual cost for a given team cannot be computed.
- The AI notice states Framer owns the AI features and resulting usage data, while we found no public information on commercial-use rights to generated output or named model providers.
- Sovereignty attributes stand as unknown, with hosting described only as a global delivery network of 20 or 300+ locations and subprocessors referenced as a Trust Center list the captures do not show.
Best for
- You design and publish marketing sites in one tool with many reviewers and few editors — free commenting viewers and a ten-editor cap on Basic and Pro fit that mix.
- Your developers work from a documented plugin API and want branching, previews and staging before anything ships.
- You maintain a shared component system across projects and want library edits to propagate everywhere.
Avoid if
- You must export whole design files with structure intact or know how long work stays reachable after cancellation — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need a computable annual cost before committing — the captured pages carry no price figure for any plan or credit pack.
- You need written commercial-use rights to AI-generated output — the AI notice states Framer owns the AI features and resulting usage data, and we found no public information on the customer's rights to generated output.
- You require first-party brand-governance tooling — the brand-rule scanner and style-guide generator are third-party marketplace plugins with limited licences.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Design, prototyping & design systems | 3 of 5 |
| Collaboration, review & developer handoff | 3 of 5 |
| Brand assets & governance | 2 of 5 |
| Files, formats & portability | 1 of 5 |
| AI features & rights to the work | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 2 of 5 |
Design, prototyping & design systems
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The making itself: vector and layout tools, interactive prototypes, and the shared components, styles and tokens that keep a company's products and materials consistent — judged on what the feature and help pages document, not on showcase images.
0 — A single-purpose editor with no reusable components, no shared styles and no prototyping.
3 — Templates and basic shapes or layouts, with styles saved per file only and prototyping limited to linking screens.
5 — Reusable components and shared styles across files, responsive or auto layout, clickable prototypes with transitions, and team libraries that update where they are used.
8 — A design system managed in the tool: variables or tokens for colour, type and spacing with modes or themes, component variants and properties, prototypes with conditional logic, and library change notes with versions.
10 — The design system is a governed product: library releases versioned and reviewable, token export in a documented format for development, usage analytics per component, and accessibility checks such as contrast built into the editor.
The Product Designer
Component variants with inheritance, resettable overrides and hover and press states that animate in preview are properly documented, libraries propagate updates to every project that uses them, and automatic breakpoint variants cover desktop, tablet and phone. But we found no public information on tokens with modes or themes for colour, type and spacing, on library change notes with versioned releases, or on per-component usage analytics, so the system is documented as reusable but not as a governed product. 5 6 9
The Frontend Engineer
The help pages document real component work: variants that inherit layer structure with purple-highlighted overrides, hover and press states that animate in preview, and a shared component library whose updates propagate to every project through an Update button, with breakpoint variants auto-selected across desktop, tablet and phone. We found no public information on token export in a documented format, prototypes with conditional logic, or versioned library releases with change notes, so this is solid component craft without a governed design system. 5 6 9
The Brand Marketer
Component variants with overrides, automatic breakpoint selection, and component libraries that push updates into every project are the machinery that keeps twelve offices on one look, and the marketplace adds a style-guide generator with semantic tagging. We found no public information on colour, type and spacing tokens with themes or modes, prototypes with conditional logic, or library change notes with versions, so the fully governed design system is out of reach. 5 6 9 1
The Agency Owner
Component variants with per-variant overrides and hover states that animate in preview, breakpoint-driven Desktop/Tablet/Phone variants, and component libraries whose updates reach every project through an Update button — that is the shared-system level I need before handing a brand system to a client. I found no public information on tokens with themes or modes, prototype conditional logic, or versioned library release notes, which is what separates a managed design system from a good component set. 5 6 9
The Data Protection Officer
Component variants with inherited layer structure, overrides and animated hover states, a component library whose master-file updates propagate to every project, and breakpoint variants for desktop, tablet and phone are documented on Framer's own help pages. We found no public information on colour, type and spacing variables with modes or themes, library change notes with versions, or accessibility checks in the editor, so this sits above shared components and styles but below a governed design system. 5 6
The Skeptic
Components with variants, inheritable overrides and component variables are documented, hover and press states animate in Preview, and library edits propagate to every project through an update control — real design-system plumbing. But I found no public information on token themes or modes, conditional logic in prototypes, or versioned library releases with change notes, so the system is managed but not governed. 5 6 1 9
Collaboration, review & developer handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Working on the same files with colleagues, clients and developers: comments and review, permissions for internal and external people, and the handoff that gives engineering measurements, assets and code rather than screenshots.
0 — Files shared as exports or links with no comments, no permissions beyond view or edit, and no developer view.
3 — Real-time co-editing and comments, but external reviewers need a paid seat or full access, and developers get only exported images.
5 — Comments with mentions and resolution, view-only and comment-only access for guests without a paid seat, permissions per file and project, and an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export.
8 — Branching or review of changes before they reach the main file, version history with restore, a developer mode that links components to code, an API and plugins documented, and named integrations with issue trackers and code tools.
10 — Handoff is a contract between design and code: component properties mapped to code components, token and asset export automated through the API, an audit log of access and sharing, and external access governed by domain, expiry and admin policy.
The Product Designer
Branching with previews, a staging environment and site versioning give real review before publish, and a typed, documented plugin API with granular project permissions and branch-merge methods is a genuine developer surface, with viewers commenting free across all plans. We found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements and styles, version history with restore, or a developer mode that links components to code. 2 8 1 2 7
The Frontend Engineer
Free viewers can comment without a paid seat, roles split view, content, design and deploy rights, and branching with previews plus staging give review before anything ships; the plugin API is documented down to a granular permission model and a branch-merge signature. We found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export, on version history with restore, or on a developer view that maps components to code — handoff here runs through plugins rather than a proper developer contract. 2 8 1 2 7
The Brand Marketer
Free viewers who can comment, granular roles for view, content, design and deploy, and branching with previews plus a documented merge API cover review well, and staging before publishing is a real safeguard. We found no public information on comment mentions and resolution, an inspect mode with measurements and asset export, or an access audit log, so the developer side rests mainly on the plugin API. 2 8 2 7
The Agency Owner
Free viewers who can comment, roles that split view, content, design and deploy, branching with previews and a documented branch-merge API, plus named connections to GitHub, Slack and external agents — my clients' reviewers cost nothing and developers get real tooling. I found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements and style readouts, on restoring past versions, or on an access audit log, so handoff still leans on the published site rather than a design-to-code contract. 2 2 8 7
The Data Protection Officer
Free viewers who can comment, roles that separate view, content, design and deploy, granular project permissions, branching with previews plus a staging environment, and a documented plugin API including branch merge are all evidenced, with shipping from a GitHub pull request also named. We found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements and styles, version history with restore, comment mentions or resolution, or an audit log of access and sharing, so handoff stops short of a documented developer mode. 2 2 7 8 1
The Skeptic
Free viewers who can comment, per-project roles split across view, content, design and deploy, staging plus branches with a documented merge API — the bones of review are there. What I do not see is an inspect view with measurements for developers, component-to-code links or named issue-tracker integrations; the handoff story leans on a Figma-to-HTML pitch. 2 8 2 7
Brand assets & governance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keeping a brand usable and correct across a company: a central library for logos, images and templates, brand guidelines people can find, locked templates that let non-designers produce material, and rights and expiry metadata on every licensed asset.
0 — No shared asset library; logos and images are uploaded per file by whoever needs them.
3 — A shared folder of assets and some templates, but no guidelines, no locking of brand elements and no metadata beyond file names.
5 — A central brand library with logos, colours and fonts, templates with locked elements for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, and tagging and search across assets.
8 — Rights, usage and expiry metadata on assets with warnings or automatic withdrawal on expiry, approval workflows for new assets and template output, version control on assets, and access per team, market or partner.
10 — Brand governance is auditable: every asset carries its licence, owner and permitted use, usage of each asset is tracked across files and channels, distribution to external partners is logged, and the whole library with metadata is exportable in a documented format.
The Product Designer
Brand enforcement exists as a third-party marketplace plugin — approved palettes, font families, spacing multiples and banned terminology grouped into rule sets per client, with violations graded by severity — alongside a style-guide generator plugin that creates semantically tagged text and colour styles. We found no public information on a native central brand library with logos and fonts, locked templates for non-designers, or rights, usage and expiry metadata on any asset. 10 1 9
The Frontend Engineer
Everything brand-related I can find is third-party marketplace plugins carrying limited licences: BrandGuard enforces colour, font, terminology, spacing and border-radius rules with severity-ranked violations, and Styleguide generates a style guide from curated palettes with semantic tagging. We found no public information on a central brand asset library, rights or expiry metadata on assets, locked templates for non-designers, or approval workflows — consistency is achievable, but governance is delegated to community plugins rather than owned by the product. 10 1 9
The Brand Marketer
The marketplace gives shared templates and community assets, and the BrandGuard and Styleguide plugins scan projects against colour, font, spacing and terminology rules with severity-flagged issues — genuine brand policing, though from third-party plugin makers. We found no public information on locked templates for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, or licence, rights and expiry metadata on assets, which is exactly what my regional offices and licensed stock photography need. 4 9 10 1
The Agency Owner
The brand story here is marketplace plugins: BrandGuard scans frames, text and asset styles against approved palettes, approved fonts, spacing multiples and banned terminology with severity levels, and Styleguide generates semantically tagged text styles. I found no public information on a first-party central library for logos and licensed assets, locked templates for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, or rights and expiry metadata on assets. 10 9 1
The Data Protection Officer
Brand rules such as approved palettes, font and terminology restrictions with severity-graded violations exist only through third-party marketplace plugins carrying limited licences, while the product itself documents templates and a component library. We found no public information on a central brand library with published guidelines, locked templates for non-designers, or rights and expiry metadata on assets, which is what a company's brand operations would rest on. 10 4 1 9
The Skeptic
Everything brand-shaped lives in third-party marketplace plugins — a brand-rule scanner and a style-guide generator, each behind its own license key and Pro tier — plus template marketplaces. I found no public information on a central asset library, rights or expiry metadata, approval workflows, or brand guidelines published in the tool itself. 9 10 1
Files, formats & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the work can leave: open or documented file formats, export that keeps layers, vectors and components, offline or self-hosted options, and what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract.
0 — Files exist only in the vendor's cloud in a proprietary format, export is a flat image, and nothing is said about files after cancellation.
3 — Export to PNG, PDF and SVG per frame, but no export of whole files with structure, and files after a downgrade or cancellation addressed only in general terms.
5 — Whole files exportable to a local or documented format, vector and layered export (SVG, PDF) with text kept as text, bulk export of a team's files, and a stated period during which files remain accessible after cancellation.
8 — An open or publicly documented file format, export and import with other tools documented, an API that reads full file structure, files of removed users transferred to the organisation by policy, and a stated deletion timeline after the contract ends.
10 — Portability is built in: an open-source or openly specified format, self-hosting or a local-first option, round-trip export without loss of components and prototypes, and the customer's ownership of all files and their export rights written into the terms.
The Product Designer
Export is flat images only, with assets and pages exported as PNG or JPG from the desktop app, and we found no public information on whole-file export with structure, a documented file format, or a stated period of access after cancellation beyond deletion upon written request. For work built on shared components, we found no public information on any structured way to take the design system itself out. 4 12 11
The Frontend Engineer
The only documented export is JPG and PNG of assets and pages from the desktop app — flat images — and we found no public information on whole-file export with structure, a documented file format, or an API that reads full file structure. After the relationship ends the terms offer deletion upon written request; we found no stated accessibility period after cancellation, and the captured help page on exporting to HTML and self-hosting documents hosting benefits and custom-domain publishing through Framer rather than a way out. 4 12 11
The Brand Marketer
Export from the desktop app is JPG or PNG for assets and pages — flat images — and the only statement about life after the contract is irreversible deletion upon written request. We found no public information on whole-file export with structure, a documented or open file format, an API that reads full file structure, or a stated period during which work stays accessible after cancellation. 3 4 12
The Agency Owner
The documented export is assets and pages as PNG or JPG from the desktop app — flat images, nothing with layers or components intact. I found no public information on whole-file or structured export, on a documented file format, or on any stated period during which client files remain accessible after cancellation; the terms only promise irreversible deletion of content upon written request, which is the opposite of what I need when winding down a project. 12 4
The Data Protection Officer
Export is documented as JPG or PNG for assets and pages through the desktop app, and we found no public information on whole-file export, a documented file format, or self-hosting terms — the captured help page on exporting to HTML and self-hosting documents custom domains and hosting features. After the contract, the terms cover irreversible deletion of content upon written request and retention periods for account and transaction data, but we found no public information on a stated period during which work remains accessible after cancellation or a downgrade. 12 11 4 3
The Skeptic
The only export the help pages document is JPG or PNG of assets and pages through the desktop app — flat images — and I found no public information on whole-file export in a documented format or on self-hosting. The terms promise deletion on written request, but nothing states how long work stays reachable after a downgrade or cancellation. 4 12 11
AI features & rights to the work
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the vendor's AI does with the customer's files and what the customer may do with the AI's output: training on customer content and the opt-out, the models and where they run, commercial use of generated images, stock licences and indemnity.
0 — Generative features with no statement on training on customer files, no named models, and no word on whether output may be used commercially.
3 — An AI page that promises responsibility but leaves open whether customer files train models, and output rights are stated only for some features or only in community terms.
5 — Training on customer content excluded or opt-out documented, AI features switchable by an admin for the organisation, model providers named, and commercial use of generated output permitted in the terms.
8 — Training excluded by default for business plans, the processing location of AI features stated, generated content labelled or carrying content credentials, stock and template licences stated per asset type, and an IP indemnity for generated output on a named plan.
10 — AI is governed in writing: a per-feature list of models, providers and locations, admin controls per team and feature, a log of AI use, training exclusion and output ownership in the contract terms, and indemnity and licence limits published in full.
The Product Designer
The AI notice states customer personal data is not used to train third-party general-purpose models with carve-outs, positions the features against high-risk use under the AI Act, and puts bring-your-own-model responsibility on the customer, while credits are metered per plan and shared across the workspace. We found no public information on named model providers, admin switches for AI features per organisation, the processing location of AI features, or commercial-use rights over generated output, and the terms state Framer owns the AI features and resulting usage data. 3 13 1 2
The Frontend Engineer
The privacy statement excludes using customer personal data to train third-party general-purpose models unless expressly disclosed otherwise, and the AI notice points to a comprehensive feature list plus bring-your-own-model terms where the customer takes responsibility for their own models, with monthly credits quantified per plan. We found no public information on named model providers, where AI processing runs, admin on/off controls per team, commercial-use terms for generated output, or indemnity — Framer's ownership of the AI features and usage data is stated while the customer's rights to output are not. 3 13 2
The Brand Marketer
The privacy statement excludes using customer personal data to train third-party general-purpose AI models by default, and the AI notice takes written positions on bring-your-own-model and on Framer's rights in its AI features. We found no public information on named model providers, where AI processing runs, admin switching of AI features per team, commercial-use rights for generated output, stock or template licences per asset type, or any indemnity — so my trade-fair-stand question has no published answer. 3 13 2
The Agency Owner
The AI notice reserves Framer's rights in its AI features and resulting usage data, and the privacy statement keeps customer personal data out of third-party model training "unless expressly disclosed otherwise" — but that leaves non-personal design content and output rights unaddressed. I found no public information on commercial-use rights to generated output, named model providers or processing locations, admin switches for AI features, or indemnity; the credit metering (1,000 or 3,000 per month) says nothing about who owns what the agents produce. 13 3 2
The Data Protection Officer
The training exclusion in the privacy statement is written for customer personal data, with a carve-out for express disclosure, and says nothing about design files or site content as such. The AI notice names no models, providers or processing locations, documents no organisation-wide admin switch for AI features, and states that Framer owns the AI features and resulting usage data, while agents are metered in monthly credits. We found no public information on commercial use of generated output, stock or template licences per asset type, content credentials, or any indemnity, and the advertised driving of sites from ChatGPT, Claude Code and Cursor comes with no stated safeguard. 3 13 1 2
The Skeptic
The privacy statement excludes only customer personal data from third-party model training, with an "unless expressly disclosed otherwise or permitted" escape hatch, and the AI notice is chiefly about Framer owning the AI features and usage data while the customer bears full responsibility for bring-your-own models. I found no public information on named model providers, AI processing locations, admin controls per AI feature, commercial-use terms for generated output, or any indemnity. 3 13 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where design files, brand assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where files are hosted, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU data residency available only on an enterprise plan or not at all, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI features send files outside the EU without an explained safeguard.
5 — EU hosting stated for files, a DPA available, but the contracting entity or significant parts of the chain (AI, rendering, support) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity, files, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.
The Product Designer
The vendor is listed as Framer B.V. of Amsterdam, but the captured pages state nothing about where files, brand assets or AI prompts are stored or processed, and the terms only point to a sub-processor list in a Trust Center that the captures do not show. We found no public information on data residency, AI processing location, or sub-processor locations and purposes, so the European character of the chain rests on the address alone. 1 4 2
The Frontend Engineer
The terms reference a sub-processor list in a Trust Center, but the captured pages give no data residency statement for stored files, no hosting locations beyond a content delivery network count, and no AI processing location. The Amsterdam address and Dutch VAT number appear in the provenance note rather than on the captured vendor pages, which leave the contracting entity, ownership and residency unconfirmed. 4 2
The Brand Marketer
Provenance names Framer B.V. in Amsterdam as the vendor, but the captured pages state nothing on where design files, brand assets or AI prompts are stored; hosting is described only as a global content delivery network with 20 or 300-plus locations. The terms reference a sub-processor list in a Trust Center, yet we found no published list with locations and purposes, and no data-processing agreement or AI processing location is evidenced. 4 1 2
The Agency Owner
The vendor is presented as Framer B.V. of Amsterdam, which is a start, but the captured pages say nothing about where design files, backups or AI prompts are stored and processed — hosting is described only as a global delivery network with 20 or 300+ locations. A sub-processor list is referenced as living in a Trust Center, yet we found no public information on its contents, locations or purposes, nor on a data processing agreement. 4 2
The Data Protection Officer
The provenance identifies a Dutch company, Framer B.V. in Amsterdam, but we found no public information in the captured pages confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where files, assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, or which subprocessors touch them — the only subprocessors referenced by category are CAPTCHA and anti-abuse services on a Trust Center list. The published hosting figures are global delivery locations rather than a residency statement, and the external AI integrations are advertised with no processing location or explained safeguard. 3 4 1 2
The Skeptic
The vendor line names an Amsterdam entity, but I found no public information on where files, assets and AI prompts are stored and processed — the captured pages show only a global delivery network with 20 or 300-plus locations — and subprocessors appear solely as a pointer to a Trust Center list. No data-residency statement, no DPA, no AI processing location that I could find. 3 4 2
Pricing transparency
panel disagrees
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual cost for their team from public pages alone — which seat types exist and what each may do, how viewers and guests are billed, how seats are added and trued up, AI credits, and the plan where SSO, admin controls and brand features begin.
0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-seat price for an entry plan, but the seat types, the billing of guests and reviewers, and the plan needed for business features are unclear.
5 — Plans priced per seat type with their main features, but at least one commonly incurred cost (seat upgrades on request, AI credits, storage, brand or SSO add-ons) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every plan and seat type priced, free viewers and guests stated with their limits, how and when added seats are billed explained, AI credits and storage priced or included explicitly, and the plan that unlocks SSO and admin controls named.
10 — Complete cost computability: annual cost derivable for a given mix of editors, viewers and guests, true-up and auto-upgrade rules published, every add-on priced publicly, and contract term, renewal and downgrade conditions stated.
The Product Designer
The pricing pages are unusually clear on structure: free commenting viewers, ten-editor caps on Basic and Pro with unlimited editors on Enterprise, credit allowances of 1,000 and 3,000 per month, published add-on limits, seats billed within 24 hours of being added, and SSO and SCIM named on Enterprise. But we found no public price figures for seats in the captured pages and no prices for add-ons or additional credits, so an annual cost for a given team cannot be computed from what was captured. 2 2
The Frontend Engineer
The captured pricing pages are unusually clear on mechanics: seat limits per plan, viewers and the workspace owner free, editors billed per seat and charged within 24 hours of being added, monthly credits shared across the workspace, add-on limits, a one-month grace on bandwidth, and the Enterprise plan named as where SSO, SCIM and admin controls live. But the captured pages give no price figures at all — no per-seat amounts and no prices for add-ons or additional credits — so a buyer cannot compute an annual total from this public material. 2 2
The Brand Marketer
The pricing pages are unusually clear on mechanics — free viewers, a free workspace owner, seat caps, editors billed within 24 hours of being added, monthly credit amounts shared across the workspace, add-on limits, and SSO, SCIM and custom limits named at Enterprise. The captured pages show no per-seat price amounts and no prices for add-ons or extra credits, so an annual total for a given mix of editors and viewers cannot be computed from public information we hold. 2 2
The Agency Owner
The pricing pages are unusually clear on mechanics — editors capped at ten on Basic and Pro, free viewers who comment at no cost, credits shared across the workspace, added editors charged within 24 hours, and a 14-day refund in the EU and Turkey — but we found no public information on a currency figure for any plan, add-on or credit pack. Without per-seat prices I cannot compute an annual cost for a client team, and single sign-on appears only at an Enterprise tier with custom billing. 2 2
The Data Protection Officer
Plan structure is unusually clear — free comment-only viewers, seat caps of ten editors on Basic and Pro, editors billed within 24 hours of being added, a one-month grace on limits, and SSO with SCIM named at the Enterprise plan. However, we found no public price figures for any plan in the captured pages, credits can be added anytime without a stated price, and Enterprise is custom billing, so an annual cost for a given team mix is not computable from what is published. 2 2
The Skeptic
The pricing pages are detailed on structure — free viewers, ten editor seats on the self-serve plans, credits of 1,000 or 3,000 per month shared across the workspace, editors billed within 24 hours of being added, SSO and SCIM on Enterprise — yet across two captures I found no price figure for any plan, no price for added credits, and Enterprise on custom terms. A buyer cannot compute a single euro of annual cost from what is published here. 2 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Framer
Is Framer European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Framer as EU-Made.
Where does Framer store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Framer have a free plan?
Yes. Framer has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Framer?
As of 16 Oct 2026, the panel rates Penpot (2.5/5), Sketch (2.5/5) and Frontify (2.5/5) highest among the other 13 Design products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Penpot (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Framer alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors, Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 32 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 11 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 data facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →