Design
Lucidspark
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Lucid Software Inc. · lucid.co
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.
Lucidspark at a glance
- Vendor
- Lucid Software Inc.
- 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 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Lucidspark 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Lucidspark — Lucid Software Inc.'s whiteboard, from South Jordan, Utah — scores strongest on collaboration and handoff, clustering at 4-5 on five documented roles from owner to view, folder inheritance, guest collaborators, chat and comments, sharing and document APIs, and more than 100 custom-built integrations. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 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
Lucidspark — Lucid Software Inc.'s whiteboard, from South Jordan, Utah — scores strongest on collaboration and handoff, clustering at 4-5 on five documented roles from owner to view, folder inheritance, guest collaborators, chat and comments, sharing and document APIs, and more than 100 custom-built integrations. Sovereignty is the weak point at 0: the captured pages give no hosting region for boards, backups or AI prompts and no subprocessor list, with AI vendors and payment processors appearing unnamed. Brand asset governance sits at 2 — a guidelines template and a brand experience guide, not a governed library. The bench splits on file ownership and portability at 2-4: higher scores credit documented Visio, draw.io, Gliffy, BPMN and board PDF import plus export endpoints, lower ones weigh unnamed export formats and the absence of any statement on files after cancellation. AI and content rights lands 3-4 on written output ownership, the spread turning on the unnamed AI providers; design and prototyping 2-3, templates without interactive prototyping. Pricing transparency scores 1 — a free sign-up, no published plan prices — and stays a passing note.
Speaks for it
- Collaboration and handoff scores cluster at 4-5 on five documented roles from owner to view, folder inheritance and guest collaborators.
- Documented sharing and document APIs sit alongside more than 100 custom-built integrations.
- The supplemental AI terms assign all right, title and interest in AI output to the customer, with the feature optional and high-risk uses barred.
- Import is documented by file type — Visio, draw.io, Gliffy, BPMN and board PDF — with export, copy and two-way sync through the API.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 0 because the captured pages give no hosting region, subprocessor list or AI processing location.
- Brand asset governance scores sit at 2, with the brand pages limited to a guidelines template and a brand experience guide.
- Design and prototyping scores sit at 2-3, the prototype material being planning and wireflow templates rather than working prototypes.
- We found no public information on which export formats the export endpoints produce, or on files after a downgrade or cancelled contract.
- The privacy policy names only unnamed vendors providing AI functionality, and we found no public information on training on customer files, provider names or processing locations.
Best for
- You run workshops, brainstorms and meeting facilitation and need five-level role access with guest collaborators, chat and comments.
- You are migrating diagrams from Visio, draw.io, Gliffy or BPMN tools and can build against the documented import endpoint and document APIs.
- You want contract language assigning all right, title and interest in AI output to you, with the AI optional and high-risk uses barred.
Avoid if
- You need a governed brand library — central logos, colours and fonts, locked elements, rights and expiry metadata — rather than guidelines templates; brand asset governance scores sit at 2.
- Your workflow requires interactive prototypes, reusable components and shared styles or tokens; the prototype material on the pages is planning and wireflow templates.
- You must be able to state where boards, backups and AI prompts are hosted and which subprocessors touch them before signing; sovereignty scores sit at 0 on the captured pages.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Design, prototyping & design systems | 1.5 of 5 |
| Collaboration, review & developer handoff | 2 of 5 |
| Brand assets & governance | 1 of 5 |
| Files, formats & portability | 1.5 of 5 |
| AI features & rights to the work | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 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
Hundreds of templates, an infinite canvas, sticky notes, mind maps, dynamic tables and Lucid Cards are documented, and there are template pages for prototype planning and wireflows — but a wireflow template is a static diagram, not a working prototype. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles or tokens across files, component variants, or interactive prototypes, so a design system cannot be built and released here. 1 4 5
The Frontend Engineer
The pages document an infinite canvas with sticky notes, dynamic mind maps, dynamic tables, Lucid Cards and hundreds of editable templates, including prototype planning and wireflow canvases. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles or team libraries, or on interactive prototyping with transitions. As a design surface this is template and whiteboard territory, not design-system territory. 1 4 5 9
The Brand Marketer
Lucidspark documents an infinite canvas, dynamic mind maps and tables, and hundreds of templates including customisable prototype-planning and wireflow templates my offices could start from. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles across files, team libraries, or interactive prototypes with transitions, so this reads as basic templates on a whiteboard rather than a design tool with a system behind it. 1 4 5
The Agency Owner
This is a whiteboard: hundreds of templates, sticky notes, dynamic mind maps and tables, visual activities and data-linked shapes are documented, and the prototype material is a planning template rather than interactive prototyping. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles across files or team libraries, so finished design making is not evidenced. Fine for the workshop that precedes a design, not for the design itself. 1 4 5 11
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages document a virtual whiteboard with an infinite canvas, hundreds of templates, dynamic mind maps and tables, and prototype-planning and wireflow templates; we found no public information on reusable components, shared styles or team libraries, on tokens, variants or design-system governance, or on any in-tool prototyping beyond content templates. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
The captured pages document a whiteboard — infinite canvas, dynamic mind maps, Dynamic Table, sticky notes and hundreds of templates — while the prototype planning and wireflow entries are canvases to fill in, with a wireframe-to-flow template the closest thing to prototyping. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles across files, or component variants and tokens. This is a templated drawing surface, and the score sits just under the level that would require styles and screen-linking. 1 4 5
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
Collaboration is the strong half: comments and integrated chat, guest collaborators, five roles from view up to owner, access inherited through folders with direct access taking priority, and group grants managed through the UI or Group APIs. The developer half stops at documented sharing, collaboration and document APIs plus more than 100 integrations; we found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements, version history with restore, or review of changes before they reach a shared document. 1 6 7 9
The Frontend Engineer
Documented roles run from owner down to comment-only and view-only, guests and group grants are supported with folder inheritance, and there are documented APIs for share links and collaborator management plus chat and comments on the canvas. We found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export, on version history with restore, or on any component-to-code handoff — the part I need before I stop working from screenshots. This earns mid-table on collaboration alone. 1 6 7 9
The Brand Marketer
Documented collaborator roles of owner, edit-and-share, edit, comment and view, folder-level inheritance, group management, sharing links, plus chat and comments, cover the review side of working with twelve offices. We found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export, version history with restore, or branching before changes reach the main file, which is the handoff half my developers would judge. 7 6 9 1
The Agency Owner
Role-based access is documented in five roles with folder inheritance and group grants, guest collaborators exist, chat and comments are confirmed, and a documented API reads document contents and creates share links alongside a claim of more than one hundred integrations. We found no public information on how guests are billed, on version history with restore or branching, or on an inspect mode with measurements for developers, which is the handoff my engineers need. 1 6 7 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Five collaboration roles from owner down to comment and view, access inherited through folders, guest collaborators, chat and comments, and documented sharing and document APIs alongside more than 100 integrations give real permission and review structure. We found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements, on mentions and comment resolution, on branching or version restore, or on how guest and viewer seats are billed. 1 6 7 9 10
The Skeptic
The permission model is genuinely documented — five roles from owner down to view, folder inheritance with direct-access priority, group collaboration, guest collaborators, chat, comments and sharing APIs — which is more than bare co-editing. But we found no public information on comment resolution or mentions, on whether guests need a paid seat, and, decisively for a design product, on any inspect mode, measurements or developer view; the hundred-plus integrations claim carries no named developer tool. 1 6 7 9
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
What the brand pages show are document templates — a brand guidelines page and a brand experience guide using the THEME framework — available for all plan types. We found no public information on a central library of logos, fonts and colours, locked brand elements for non-designers, rights or expiry metadata on assets, approval workflows, or asset version control. 1 8 9
The Frontend Engineer
The brand story is two editable canvases, a brand guidelines template and a brand experience guide, offered for all plan types alongside the general template library. We found no public information on a central library of logos, colours and fonts, on locked template elements for non-designers, or on rights, usage and expiry metadata on assets. Writing guidelines on a template is not governing assets. 1 8 9
The Brand Marketer
There is a brand guidelines template and a brand experience guide template, stated as available for all plan types, and that is the whole brand story on these pages. We found no public information on a central library of logos, colours and fonts, locked templates that stop non-designers moving the logo, tagging and search across assets, or licence and expiry metadata on any image — the metadata I need before a photo runs in a market. 8 9 1
The Agency Owner
What the pages show are content templates — a brand guidelines template and a brand experience guide built on an academic framework — rather than a governed asset library. We found no public information on a central library of logos, colours and fonts, locked elements for non-designers, or licence and expiry metadata on assets. I would not run a client's brand operations here. 1 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
What the pages show are templates for writing a brand guidelines document and a brand experience guide — content canvases, not a governed library. We found no public information on a central logo and asset library, locked template elements for non-designers, rights or expiry metadata, or approval workflows for assets and output. 8 9
The Skeptic
Everything brand-related we found is a template: a brand guidelines template and a brand experience guide built on the THEME framework, both available on all plan types. We found no public information on a shared brand asset library, locked elements for non-designers, tagging and search, or rights and expiry metadata on assets. Writing your guidelines in a document is not governing them. 8 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
A documented import API accepts Visio, draw.io, Gliffy and BPMN files, and document endpoints can read contents, copy, update and export documents, including creation from JSON. We found no public information on export formats or whole-file export with structure kept, and nothing on what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract — the only retention figure captured is six months of the vendor's own production backups. 2 10
The Frontend Engineer
The developer pages document import from Visio, draw.io, Gliffy and BPMN files, document creation from JSON, a document contents endpoint and asynchronous export jobs — an API that touches file structure, which is the shape of portability I want to build against. We found no public information on the export formats offered, on bulk export of a team's files, or on what happens to files after a downgrade or cancellation beyond trial auto-deactivation wording. 10 11 3
The Brand Marketer
The developer documentation covers import of Visio, draw.io, Gliffy, BPMN and board PDF files, two-way data sync through the Extension API, and API endpoints to export documents and read document contents. We found no public information on a documented Lucidspark file format, layered vector export keeping text as text, bulk export of a team's boards, or what happens to files after a downgrade or a cancelled contract. 10 11
The Agency Owner
Import is documented in detail — Visio, draw.io, Gliffy, BPMN and board PDF come in — and the API exposes export endpoints and document contents, but we found no public information on which export formats are supported or whether structure survives export. We found no public information on whole-file export with layers and components, and nothing on files after a downgrade or a cancelled contract; six-month backups are the vendor's, not the client's guarantee. Handing a finished project over would mean exporting into the unknown. 2 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
The developer documents describe documented import of Visio, draw.io, Gliffy, BPMN and board PDF files via the import endpoint, API endpoints to export and copy documents, and two-way data sync with external sources through the Extension API. Export formats and whole-board structure export are not named, and we found no public information on an open file format, self-hosting, or what happens to files after a downgrade or cancelled contract. 10 11
The Skeptic
Getting in is documented to the file type — Visio, draw.io, Gliffy, BPMN and board PDF imports, plus JSON-based document creation and document-contents endpoints in the public API — but the export formats behind the export endpoints are not shown, and we found no public information on what happens to files after a downgrade or cancellation; the only post-trial statement is that airfocus accounts are auto-deactivated. Six months of production backup retention tells you about the vendor's backups, not your exit. 2 3 10 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 supplemental AI terms assign all right, title and interest in generated output to the customer, mark the AI as an optional feature, and restrict uses such as automated decision-making and training competing models. But the privacy policy says only that unnamed vendors process information accessed by AI features when enabled; we found no public information on whether customer content trains models, named models or providers, AI processing location, admin controls per feature, content labelling or indemnity. 2 12 13
The Frontend Engineer
The supplemental AI terms are unusually concrete: Lucid AI is optional, output is assigned to the customer with all right, title and interest, and high-risk and competitor-training uses are barred. The features on offer generate, sort and summarise sticky notes and mind-map branches. But the privacy policy only says AI vendors process information the features access once the feature is enabled, and we found no public information on whether customer content trains models, on an opt-out, on named providers or processing locations, or on indemnity. 2 12 13
The Brand Marketer
The supplemental AI terms assign all of Lucid's right, title and interest in the output to the customer, which is the contract-level answer I want before a generated image goes on a trade-fair stand, and Lucid AI is optional with high-risk uses barred. We found no public information on whether customer content trains the models, on the names or locations of the AI vendors, on an organisation-wide admin switch, on labelling of generated content, or on any indemnity, and there is no stock licence statement in the captured pages. 12 13 2 3
The Agency Owner
The AI terms assign the customer all right, title and interest in generated output, AI is optional, and the features — idea generation, sorting, summarising, mind maps — are documented, which is genuinely good ownership language. But we found no public information on whether customer content trains the models, on an opt-out, on named model providers or on indemnity; the privacy policy says only that vendors process information when AI is enabled. The ownership clause stands alone without the surrounding guarantees. 2 3 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
The supplemental AI terms assign Output to the customer, make Lucid AI optional, and bar high-risk and competing-model uses — real contract language, not a marketing promise. But the privacy policy only says AI vendors process information accessed by AI features when Lucid AI is enabled: we found no public information excluding training on customer files or an organisation-wide opt-out in the terms, the AI providers are unnamed, and no processing location, content labelling, per-asset licences or indemnity appear on the captured pages. 2 3 12 13
The Skeptic
The supplemental AI terms are unusually concrete on the customer's side: Lucid assigns all right, title and interest in AI output to the customer, the AI is optional and stoppable, and high-risk and competitor-training uses are barred in writing. What stays open is the vendor's side — we found no public information on whether customer content trains models, on model or provider names, or on processing location, with the privacy policy saying only that vendors providing AI functionality process information when Lucid AI is enabled. 2 3 12 13
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 contracting entity is Lucid Software Inc., South Jordan, Utah, and the captured pages contain no statement on where files or backups are hosted, while the AI vendors and payment processors named in the privacy policy go unnamed. We found no public information on an EU contracting entity, EU data residency, a DPA, or a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes. 2 3
The Frontend Engineer
The contracting party is Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah, and we found no public information on where boards, assets or AI prompts are stored or processed. Subprocessors appear only as unnamed third-party vendors for payments and AI functionality, though support is stated to be staffed by Lucid employees across the countries where they operate. Nothing on these captured pages supports a European sovereignty claim. 2 3
The Brand Marketer
The vendor is Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah, and we found no public information on where boards and the six-month backups are hosted, on the contracting entity's location beyond the US company name, or on which subprocessors sit behind the AI and payment processing. For a brand library holding pan-European assets, nothing captured lets me state a chain of custody. 2 3
The Agency Owner
The vendor is Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah, and we found no public information on where files, assets and AI prompts are stored or processed, or on which subprocessors touch them. For European clients with residency requirements the question is unanswerable from the captured pages. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The captured privacy policy and terms give no contracting-entity jurisdiction, no hosting region for boards, backups or AI prompts, and name no subprocessors — "our vendors that provide artificial intelligence functionality" and "third-party payment processors" appear with no list, locations or safeguards. We found no public information on EU data residency, a data processing agreement, or any protection when Lucid AI sends content to those vendors; a European buyer cannot establish from these pages who touches their whiteboards or where. 2 3 12
The Skeptic
The contracting vendor is Lucid Software Inc. of South Jordan, Utah, and the captured pages give no hosting location for files or backups, no subprocessor list with locations, and no processing location for the AI vendors, which are named only generically. Payment handling goes to third-party processors and AI data to unnamed vendors; the fact that product support is staffed by Lucid employees does not change where the work itself lives. 2 3
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 only cost signals captured are a free sign-up, the trial rule that the first payment is charged immediately after a non-airfocus trial ends, and an enterprise licence implied by an API permission error. We found no public information on plan prices, seat types and what each may do, or how viewers and guests are billed, so an annual cost for a team cannot be computed from these pages. 3 4 10
The Frontend Engineer
The only public price signal is a free sign-up, plus terms saying a trial of the main products bills its first payment immediately when it ends while an airfocus trial simply deactivates the account. We found no public information on per-seat prices, seat types, how guests or reviewers are billed, add-ons, or which plan unlocks admin and brand features. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from these pages. 3 4
The Brand Marketer
The captured pages show a free sign-up and state that for non-airfocus trials the first payment is charged immediately after the trial ends. We found no public information on per-seat prices, seat types, how viewers and guest collaborators are billed, AI credits, or the plan that unlocks SSO and admin controls, so I cannot budget twelve offices from these pages. 4 3 1
The Agency Owner
A free signup is public and the terms state the first payment is charged immediately after a non-airfocus trial ends, but we found no public information on any paid plan price. We found no public information on seat types, how viewers and guests are billed, AI credits, or the plan where admin controls and SSO begin, so I could not cost a fifteen-person project from these pages. 3 4 9
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages show a free sign-up, trial behaviour such as the first payment being taken immediately after the trial ends for non-airfocus products, and a rule that board imports require a Lucidspark Enterprise License. We found no public information on any plan prices, seat types and their entitlements, guest or viewer billing, AI credits, or which plan unlocks SSO and admin controls — not even a per-seat price for an entry plan appears. 3 4 10
The Skeptic
The only pricing facts we found are a free sign-up and the mechanic that the first charge lands immediately after a free trial for non-airfocus products, alongside professional services offered at unstated prices. No plan names, per-seat prices, seat types, viewer or guest billing, or the plan unlocking SSO and admin controls appear in the captured pages, so an annual cost for a team cannot even be started. 3 4
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 Lucidspark
Is Lucidspark European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Lucidspark as Rest of world.
Where does Lucidspark store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Lucidspark have a free plan?
Yes. Lucidspark has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Lucidspark?
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: Lucidspark alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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 — Legal entity, Data residency, Subprocessors. 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.
- 24 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
- 6 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
- 4 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 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
- 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 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
- 1 hosting 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 pricing 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
- 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Terms of service lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap lucid-developer-docs.readme.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap lucid-developer-docs.readme.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap lucid-developer-docs.readme.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap lucid-developer-docs.readme.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap lucid.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →