whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Design

Framer

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Framer: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Framer: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Framer alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Frontend Engineer

Weighted verdict

Turns the designs into code and gets the ticket when they disagree. Wants an inspect mode without a paid seat, tokens exported in a documented format, components mapped to the code ones, and an API that reads the whole file rather than a screenshot of it.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Frontend Engineer

Panel median The Frontend Engineer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Frontend Engineer
Design, prototyping & design systems 3 of 5 3 of 5
Collaboration, review & developer handoff 3 of 5 3 of 5
Brand assets & governance 2 of 5 2 of 5
Files, formats & portability 1 of 5 1 of 5
AI features & rights to the work 2 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 2 of 5 2.5 of 5

Design, prototyping & design systems

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Collaboration, review & developer handoff

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Brand assets & governance

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Files, formats & portability

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

AI features & rights to the work

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about Framer? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (14)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.framer.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →