Design
Frontify
UK / wider Europe Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Frontify AG · www.frontify.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.
Frontify at a glance
- Vendor
- Frontify AG
- 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
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Frontify 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Frontify AG of St. 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
Frontify AG of St. Gallen, Switzerland, is a brand management platform the judges score as a brand home rather than a design studio. Brand asset governance is the strongest ground, with scores at 6-7: central libraries with mandatory custom metadata, cross-library search and per-region Targets are documented in depth. Outside pricing transparency, design and prototyping is the lowest-scored criterion, ranging 2-4 — the low end found no public information on prototyping or vector tools, while the high end credited templates, themes and the Figma variables flow into the guidelines. Collaboration and handoff runs 5-7: granular viewer, reviewer and editor roles with folder-level permissions are documented, though inspect mode works on Sketch files and requires an Enterprise account. File ownership scores sit at 4. AI and content rights earns 5-6 — identifiable customer data trains nothing without explicit consent and providers are named — while sovereignty scores 3-4: hosting is stated as AWS in Europe or the USA at customer preference, with no public information on subprocessors or AI processing locations. Pricing transparency sits at 1; the vendor publishes no prices.
Speaks for it
- central libraries with mandatory custom metadata, tagging and cross-library search, where assets missing required metadata stay hidden from library pages
- Targets serve content to specific stakeholders in specific regions, alongside folder-level view, review and edit permissions and admin-approved invitations
- whole-project export including all assets, one-click PDF and print of entire guidelines, and asset downloads in vector formats with no selection cap
- a written AI addendum: identifiable customer data trains nothing without explicit consent, access can be disabled at any time, and outputs are retained by the customer
- named AI providers — AWS, Microsoft Azure AI, and OpenAI through a marketplace app — with EU AI Act risk classification maintained per feature
Held against it
- no public information on prototyping, vector or layout tools, with the captured pages documenting systems authored in Figma and Sketch
- inspect mode documented only for Sketch files and only on an Enterprise account
- no public information on a subprocessor list, the contracting entity's jurisdiction or where AI features process files
- no public information on the project export format or on file access after a cancelled contract or removed seat
Best for
- You need one central brand library with mandatory metadata, tagging and cross-library search, publishing guidelines as the single source of truth
- You serve brand content to different stakeholders and regions and need Targets, folder-level permissions and admin-approved invitations to control it
- Your design system lives in Figma and Sketch and you need it documented — variables, code components and copyable token values — inside published guidelines
- You want AI features under written terms, with the ability to disable access at any time
Avoid if
- You need to author designs or build prototypes in the platform itself — the documented workflow brings variables and components in from Figma and Sketch rather than making them here
- Your developers need inspect data from files other than Sketch or on a plan below Enterprise — inspect mode is documented for Sketch files on an Enterprise account only
- You rely on licence expiries being enforced automatically — an expiry-date field is documented, but we found no public information on warnings or automatic withdrawal when it passes
- You must verify the full processing chain before signing — the pages state AWS hosting in Europe or the USA at customer preference, and we found no public information on subprocessors or AI processing locations
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Design, prototyping & design systems | 2 of 5 |
| Collaboration, review & developer handoff | 3 of 5 |
| Brand assets & governance | 3.5 of 5 |
| Files, formats & portability | 2 of 5 |
| AI features & rights to the work | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 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
This is where a design system gets published rather than made: reusable content blocks, centrally connected colour palettes and fonts, themes that define layout and style, and a Figma variables block that documents colour, string and number tokens exported as JSON — real system furniture, but authored elsewhere. We found no public information on a vector canvas, component variants, or any interactive prototyping, so the making itself sits at templates and shared styles. 2 7 10 10
The Frontend Engineer
Templates, content blocks for colour, typography and icons, and colour palettes connected across guidelines are documented, and Figma variables of several types can be documented with values copyable by viewers. But this is documentation of a design system, not authoring of one — I found no public information on vector or layout tools, interactive prototypes, or component variants and properties, and the token flow runs out of Figma rather than out of Frontify. 2 7 10 10
The Brand Marketer
The documented platform is about recording a design system rather than making one: Figma variables flow in through a dedicated block, code components display via Storybook, and colours and fonts are managed centrally with an API that connects them to integrations. Templates appear as a module name alongside themes and content blocks, while we found no public information on vector or layout editing of one's own, component variants, or any prototyping. 2 7 10 10
The Agency Owner
This is a brand home, not a design studio: we found no public information on a canvas, vector or layout tools, or any form of prototyping. The making that is evidenced is documentation of systems built elsewhere — colour and typography content blocks, and a Figma variables block that pulls variables into the guidelines — plus a templates module named on the pricing page without detail. 2 7 10
The Data Protection Officer
The captured help pages describe a brand-guidelines platform: content blocks, themes and a documented Figma variables workflow give organisation-wide shared colour, typography and variable definitions, but we found no public information on vector editing, canvas layout tools or interactive prototyping — the design work itself happens upstream in Figma and Sketch and is then documented here. Shared styles across the account lift it above a per-file editor, though nothing like prototypes or component variants is evidenced. 7 8 10 10
The Skeptic
The making happens somewhere else: the captured help pages document a documentation layer — Figma variables, Storybook code components, connected colour palettes — rather than vector or layout tools, and we found no public information on prototyping in the product at all. Variables can be documented, filtered and hidden down to a single value, which lifts this above a bare zero, but components, variants and library versioning are only ever shown arriving from Figma, never authored here. 7 10 10
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
Commenting on guideline pages and assets, a viewer-to-editor role model with additive folder permissions of can view, can review and can edit, admin-approved invitations, and public library pages for external viewers add up to a working review setup. Inspect mode genuinely delivers pixels, HEX and RGB, copyable CSS and bulk asset export with on-brand colour auditing, but it is documented for Sketch files on an Enterprise account, and we found no public information on branching, restoring past file versions, or issue-tracker integrations. 2 6 8 10 9
The Frontend Engineer
Inspect mode is the real thing — pixel measurements with rulers, HEX and RGB colours, copyable CSS, and asset export in SVG and other formats — and it comes with a changelog that restores deleted content, folder-level view/review/edit permissions, public library pages for outside viewers, and admin-approved provisioning. But inspect is Sketch-only and gated to the Enterprise account, and I found no public information on branching, mention-and-resolve comments, an access audit log, or issue-tracker integrations; the Storybook and CodeSandbox blocks are the only code-side links shown. 6 8 9 10 9
The Brand Marketer
Commenting on guideline pages, a granular role model from viewer to reviewer to editor with folder-level permissions, and admin approval for invitations give me the control I want across twelve offices; inspect mode hands developers measurements, CSS, layer detail and asset export, though the help pages say it works on Sketch files and requires an Enterprise account. A documented developer platform, marketplace and named integrations with Figma, Sketch, Storybook and CodeSandbox strengthen the handoff; we found no public information on branching or an audit log of access. 2 8 9 10 9
The Agency Owner
The roles my clients need exist — viewer, reviewer and editor with distinct rights, folder-level view/review/edit permissions, and library pages external people can browse and download from — and a Sketch-based inspect mode hands over measurements, CSS and asset exports. That inspect mode is documented only for Enterprise accounts and Sketch files, though, guideline page commenting is the only review mechanism we found public information on, and there is no branching or file version history for review in the captured help pages. 6 8 9 10 9
The Data Protection Officer
Granular user roles with folder-level view, review and edit permissions, admin approval of every invitation, per-market Targets and commenting on guideline pages cover the review side, and an Inspect mode documents measurements, CSS code and asset export — but only for Sketch files and only on an Enterprise account. We found no public information on comment resolution with mentions, branching, an audit log of access and sharing, or named issue-tracker integrations, which keeps this short of the higher bar. 8 9 10 9
The Skeptic
Comments, personal notes, granular roles, admin-approved provisioning and folder-level permissions are documented, and inspect mode does deliver measurements, CSS and asset export — but only for Sketch files on an Enterprise account. We found no public information on comment mentions and resolution, branching, an audit log, or issue-tracker integrations; the changelog restores deleted blocks but is not version history for a file state. 8 9 9 10
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
This is the vendor's home ground: a central library with tagging, auto-tagging and cross-library search, required custom metadata that hides non-compliant assets, an expiry-date field, targets gating content by stakeholder and region, approval rights in projects, and an analytics module. We found no public information on expiry warnings or automatic withdrawal of expired assets, version control on assets, or locked elements in templates — the difference between organised and auditable. 2 3 6 11 9 10
The Frontend Engineer
This is the core product and it shows: central libraries with custom metadata including an expiry date field, tagging with cross-library search, published brand guidelines, and Targets gating what each region and stakeholder group can see. Approval rights exist inside projects, but I found no public information on licence or owner metadata with automatic withdrawal on expiry, version control on assets, per-asset usage tracking, or logged distribution to external partners. 2 6 10 11 9
The Brand Marketer
This is the heart of the product: a central library with mandatory custom metadata, tagging and cross-library search, guidelines positioned as the single source of truth, and Targets serving content to specific stakeholders in specific regions. An expiry date field exists on assets and approval rights plus workflow status govern what becomes visible, but we found no public information on licence or owner metadata per asset, on warnings or automatic withdrawal when an asset expires, or on locking brand elements inside templates so non-designers cannot break them. 2 6 10 11 9
The Agency Owner
This is the heart of the product and it shows: one central library for logos, colours and fonts, guidelines published in the tool, tagging with cross-library search, and a migration metadata schema with mandatory IDs plus custom fields including expiry dates, while assets missing required metadata stay hidden from consumers. Targets slice visibility by stakeholder group and region, approval rights govern requests in projects, and admins control who may create brands, guidelines and libraries. We found no public information on version history for the assets themselves or automatic withdrawal when an expiry date passes. 2 6 11 9
The Data Protection Officer
This is the vendor's home ground: a central library with published guidelines, templates, tagging, cross-library search, custom metadata including an expiry-date field, mandatory metadata enforced by hiding non-compliant assets, Targets serving content by region and stakeholder, and approval rights within projects. We found no public information on automatic withdrawal when an asset expires, version control on assets, or per-asset usage tracking and distribution logs that would make the library auditable. 2 6 10 11 9
The Skeptic
This is the vendor's home ground: central libraries with cross-library search, custom metadata including an expiry-date field, required metadata that hides non-compliant assets from library pages, per-market Targets, and approval rights on requests. What holds it under the top band is that we found no public information on warnings or automatic withdrawal at expiry, on version control for the assets themselves, or on locked template elements for non-designers beyond the module name. 6 10 11 9
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
Whole-project export including all assets, one-click PDF and print of an entire guideline for compliance snapshots and archiving, and a documented migration path via metadata sheets and professional services give the work a way out. We found no public information on a documented file format, an API that reads full file structure, or file access after a downgrade or cancelled contract, so the exits read as archives rather than round trips. 3 11 12 13
The Frontend Engineer
Whole-project export including all assets is documented as a one-click download, entire guidelines export to PDF and print, and assets come out in SVG, EPS and other formats. I found no public information on a documented file format for guidelines, an API that reads full file structure, or what happens to a team's files after a downgrade or cancellation — the ninety-day deletion statement I did find covers only the customer hub. 3 8 12 13
The Brand Marketer
Guidelines export to PDF and print as a whole or as single documents, projects export with all their assets, and per-asset downloads include vector formats with no selection cap. We found no public information on a documented file format, on an API that reads the full file structure, or on what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract. 6 8 12 13
The Agency Owner
Handover is half-solved: a project export downloads the entire project including all assets in one action, and guidelines export to PDF and print — but we found no public information on the format of that project export or whether any structure survives it. We also found no public information on what happens to files after a cancelled contract or a removed seat beyond a purpose-based personal-data retention note, and none on a documented file format. 3 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
A project export downloads the entire project including all assets, guidelines export to PDF in one click, and asset migrations accept documented XLSX and CSV metadata — so the work can partly leave. We found no public information on a documented file format, an API that reads full file structure, or what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract, and the export format itself is not documented. 11 12 13
The Skeptic
Whole projects export as a download including all assets, and guidelines export to PDF and print — genuine exits, but flat ones. We found no public information on a documented file format, on export that keeps components or prototypes, or on what happens to brand files after a downgrade or cancelled contract; the only deletion timelines we found cover personal data and the customer hub, not the work itself. 3 12 13
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 addendum is written down: identifiable customer data trains nothing without explicit consent, customers may deactivate AI features at any time, providers are named as AWS and Microsoft Azure AI, EU AI Act risk assessments are maintained, users are told they are interacting with an AI, and outputs are retained by the customer subject to third-party provider terms. We found no public information on processing locations, labelling or content credentials on output, stock or template licences, or an indemnity — and third-party AI such as the OpenAI-powered marketplace app sits outside the addendum. 3 14 15
The Frontend Engineer
The AI addendum puts it in writing: no training on identifiable customer data without explicit consent, customers can switch AI features off anytime, providers are named (AWS, Microsoft Azure AI, OpenAI via a marketplace app), and outputs are retained by the customer subject to law and provider terms. Disclosure at first interaction and EU AI Act risk classification are documented, but I found no public information on where AI processing runs, labelling of generated content, or any indemnity, and the addendum itself carves out third-party AI services. 3 14 15
The Brand Marketer
The AI addendum is clear that identifiable customer data does not train features for other customers without explicit consent, features are optional and can be disabled at any time, providers are named as AWS, Microsoft Azure AI and OpenAI through a marketplace app, and outputs are retained by the customer subject to applicable law and third-party provider terms. That same addendum states it applies only to first-party features and not to third-party AI services, which leaves my trade-fair question on commercial use dependent on provider terms; we found no public information on AI processing locations, content credentials on generated output, or indemnity, and the documented features are search, tagging, translation and an assistant rather than image generation. 3 14 15
The Agency Owner
The AI addendum is contract-grade: identifiable customer data trains nothing offered to other customers without explicit consent, outputs are retained by the customer, access can be disabled at any time, and each feature carries an EU AI Act risk classification with first-interaction disclosure. Providers are named — AWS, Microsoft Azure AI, and OpenAI through a marketplace app — though the addendum excludes third-party AI services, and we found no public information on where AI processing runs, on content credentials, or on any indemnity. 3 14 15
The Data Protection Officer
The AI addendum puts the essentials in writing: identifiable customer data will not train AI features made available to other customers without explicit consent, the customer can disable access at any time at organisation level, outputs are retained by the customer, users are told at first interaction they face an AI system, and each feature gets an EU AI Act risk classification. Providers are named as AWS and Microsoft Azure AI, with an OpenAI-powered marketplace app, but we found no public information on the processing location of AI features, labelling or content credentials on generated output, or any IP indemnity — and the addendum itself does not extend to third-party AI services. 3 14 15
The Skeptic
The AI addendum puts in writing that identifiable customer data trains nothing without explicit consent, that the customer can disable the features at any time, and that outputs are retained by the customer, with providers named as AWS, Microsoft Azure AI and OpenAI via a Marketplace app. But the same addendum confines itself to first-party features, and we found no public information on an IP indemnity, on where AI processing runs, or on labelling of generated output — the output retention is also expressly subject to third-party provider terms. 3 14 15
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 privacy notice states hosting on AWS in Europe by default for European customers, video footage is stored in AWS Dublin, and the customer hub runs on EU-based infrastructure with deletion within ninety days of service end. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity, a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, or where AI features process data, so EU residency is stated while the rest of the chain stays unverified. 3 14
The Frontend Engineer
The privacy notice states customer data is hosted on AWS in Europe or the USA depending on customer preference, with European customers stored in Europe by default, and named processors appear in context such as AWS Dublin and EverAfter's EU-hosted customer hub. I found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, a data processing agreement, or AI processing locations, and the contracting entity is not confirmed on the captured pages. 3
The Brand Marketer
AWS hosting in Europe is stated as the general default for European customers, video footage sits in Dublin, and customer hub data stays on EU infrastructure, but we found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the captured pages, on a published subprocessor list, or on where the named AI providers process files. Until subprocessors and AI locations are published, I cannot verify the chain that carries our brand assets. 3
The Agency Owner
The privacy notice states customer data is hosted on AWS in Europe or the USA at the customer's preference, with European customers generally stored in Europe, and office footage sits in AWS Dublin. Beyond that, we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations and purposes, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction confirmed on the captured pages, or on where the AI features process files. 3
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy notice states that customer data is hosted on AWS in Europe or the USA according to customer preference, with European customers stored in Europe by default — the only concrete chain facts I could find. The contracting entity is not confirmed on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, a data processing agreement, or where the AI features process files, while the AI addendum explicitly leaves third-party AI services outside its scope. 3 14
The Skeptic
Hosting is stated as AWS in Europe or the USA per customer preference, with European customers kept in Europe by default, and office footage sits in Dublin. Beyond that the chain goes dark: we found no public information on a published subprocessor list, a data processing agreement, or the contracting entity confirmed on the captured pages, and the AI features' processing location is unstated while providers are two US hyperscalers. 3 14
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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 captured pricing page names modules — digital asset management, guidelines and portals, templates, analytics, apps, developer platform, marketplace, integrations — and mentions enterprise-grade security with SSO, but we found no public information on any price, seat-type cost, viewer or guest billing, or true-up rules. Help pages do show that targets and inspect mode are Enterprise-only, so the gating is public even though the figures are not, and a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from these pages. 2 8 9
The Frontend Engineer
The captured pricing page names modules — digital asset management, guidelines and portals, templates, analytics, apps, marketplace — and an Enterprise tier is hinted at by Targets and inspect being Enterprise-only. But I found no public information on any price figure, what a seat costs, how viewers or guests are billed, AI credits, or which plan unlocks SSO and admin controls, so a buyer cannot compute anything from public pages. 2 8 9
The Brand Marketer
The captured pricing page names modules and enterprise-grade security with single sign-on, and help pages surface role names like viewer, editor and reviewer plus Enterprise-only features such as Targets and inspect mode, but we found no public information on any price, on how seats or guests are billed, or on which plan unlocks brand features. For twelve offices budgeting their own flyers, nothing captured lets me compute an annual cost. 2 8 9
The Agency Owner
The captured pricing page names the modules — digital asset management, guidelines and portals, templates, analytics, marketplace — and places single sign-on and custom permissions under enterprise-grade security, but we found no public information on any price: per seat, per plan, guest or viewer billing, AI credits, storage, or contract terms. For my fifteen-person team, nothing on these pages lets me compute an annual cost; every number is a conversation. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page lists modules and enterprise-grade security wording with SSO mentioned in passing, and the only plan reference found anywhere is that Inspect mode and Targets sit behind an Enterprise account. We found no public information on seat prices, how viewers and guests are billed, seat true-ups, AI credits, or which plan unlocks SSO and admin controls, so no annual cost can be computed from public pages. 2 8 9
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page names modules and promises SSO and custom permissions but shows not one figure — no seat prices, no viewer or guest billing terms, and no way to compute a year's cost for any team. The only pricing signal anywhere in the captures is the word "Enterprise" gating inspect mode and Targets; role types are documented, but what each seat costs or how true-ups work is a sales conversation we found no public information on. 2 8 9
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Frontify
Is Frontify European?
Yes, though not from the EU. whats-best.ai classifies Frontify as UK / wider Europe.
Where does Frontify store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Frontify have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Frontify?
As of 16 Oct 2026, the panel rates Penpot (2.5/5), Sketch (2.5/5) and Figma (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: Frontify 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 — 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.
- 39 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 legal 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
- 6 subprocessors 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 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
- 1 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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 (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap help.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap help.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap help.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap help.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap help.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap help.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap help.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap help.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.frontify.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →