Design
Penpot
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Kaleidos Subsidiary S.L. · penpot.app
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.
Penpot at a glance
- Vendor
- Kaleidos Subsidiary S.L.
- 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 Penpot 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Penpot, an open-source design and prototyping tool from Kaleidos Subsidiary S.L., scores highest on file ownership and portability at 8-9: an MPL 2.0 core, files on SVG, CSS and HTML, import of.penpot,.zip,.svg and.json, a Figma exporter in the vendor's repository, self-hosting down to air-gapped deployment, and sole ownership of uploaded content written into the terms. 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
Penpot, an open-source design and prototyping tool from Kaleidos Subsidiary S.L., scores highest on file ownership and portability at 8-9: an MPL 2.0 core, files on SVG, CSS and HTML, import of.penpot,.zip,.svg and.json, a Figma exporter in the vendor's repository, self-hosting down to air-gapped deployment, and sole ownership of uploaded content written into the terms. Design and prototyping scores run 7-8 on built-in tokens, variants and shared, synced libraries. AI and content rights runs 2-3 — the AI offer is any agent or LLM, and the only named generative model, a fine-tuned OpenAI model, belongs to a community plugin — and pricing transparency runs 2-4: no price figure appears on the captured pricing pages, and Enterprise says only "Penpot Enterprise - check pricing". Sovereignty splits the bench, 3 to 7: high scores credit the named entity, a published data processing agreement, EU or US hosting choice and self-hosting to air-gapped; the data protection officer's 3 holds that the captured pages leave jurisdiction, ownership and residency unconfirmed, and no subprocessor list beyond payment providers as a category.
Speaks for it
- Files are based on open standards (SVG, CSS and HTML), with import of.penpot,.zip,.svg and.json and a Figma exporter in the vendor's public repository
- Self-hosting is documented from Docker through Helm charts, OpenShift, Rancher and TrueNAS to air-gapped deployment, optionally behind a VPN or zero-trust layer with your own identity provider
- The terms name the user as sole owner of uploaded content, and self-hosted deployments are stated to continue running
- Inspect mode expresses designs as real HTML, CSS and SVG, stated as free for developers, alongside an API with access tokens, a plugin system and an open MCP server
- Design tokens for colour, typography, spacing and themes are built in without a plugin, and components publish as shared, synced libraries
Held against it
- No price figure appears on any captured pricing page — tiers state "Up to 8 team members, and unlimited viewers" with storage up to 10GB and 25GB — and Enterprise says only "Penpot Enterprise - check pricing"
- The only evidenced generative capability is a community plugin, Rapid Prototyping with AI by ramby.ai, running a fine-tuned OpenAI model under a no-guarantee disclaimer
- We found no public information on whether customer files train models, on commercial-use rights or indemnity for generated output, or on where AI processing runs
- Brand asset governance scores run 3-4: we found no public information on locked templates, brand guidelines published in the tool, or rights, usage and expiry metadata on assets
- The privacy policy names payment service providers only as a category, and we found no published subprocessor list with names, locations and purposes
Best for
- You need to run design tooling on your own infrastructure — file ownership and portability scores run 8-9, with self-hosting down to air-gapped deployment behind your own VPN and identity provider
- You want engineers and stakeholders in the file without paying seats — inspect output is stated free for developers and viewers are unlimited
- You are moving work between tools — import of.penpot,.zip,.svg and.json plus a Figma exporter in the vendor's repository are documented
- You manage a design system in-tool — design and prototyping scores run 7-8 on built-in tokens, variants and shared, synced libraries
Avoid if
- You must compute an annual cost from public pages before signing — the captured pricing pages show no price figures and Enterprise says only "Penpot Enterprise - check pricing"
- You need vendor-guaranteed generative AI with defined output rights — the one named model belongs to a community plugin the vendor does not guarantee
- You need non-designers producing on-brand material from locked templates — the captured pages show share libraries and browsable templates, and we found no public information on locked elements or in-tool brand guidelines
- Your cloud procurement requires a published subprocessor list and confirmed data residency — the privacy policy names payment service providers only as a category, and the captured pages leave residency unconfirmed
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Design, prototyping & design systems | 3.5 of 5 |
| Collaboration, review & developer handoff | 3 of 5 |
| Brand assets & governance | 2 of 5 |
| Files, formats & portability | 4.5 of 5 |
| AI features & rights to the work | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.5 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 the tool earns its keep: components publish as shared and synced libraries, variants manage states, styles and sizes, design tokens are built in without a plugin and cover colour, typography, spacing and themes, and prototyping covers transitions, overlays, scroll simulation and multi-path flows. What I cannot find is anything on versioned library releases with change notes, per-component usage analytics, or accessibility checks inside the editor — the colour-contrast capability I see comes from a community plugin, which is not the same as a governed system. 6 5 7 8
The Frontend Engineer
Native design tokens covering colour, typography, spacing and themes, component variants managing states and sizes, libraries shared and synced across teams, and prototypes with transitions, overlays and branching flows are all documented. What keeps it below the top band: I found no public information on library release notes with versions, token export in a documented format for development, or contrast checking built into the editor rather than through a community plugin. 8 2 5 6 9
The Brand Marketer
The documented set is real design-system work: reusable components published as libraries shared and synced across the team, CSS Grid and Flex layouts, variants for states and sizes, and built-in design tokens covering colour, typography, spacing and themes, with prototypes that link boards through clickable hotspots, animated transitions, overlays and branching paths. We found no public information on library change notes with versions, and accessibility appears only through a community contrast plugin rather than checks built into the editor, which keeps this short of a governed design-system product. 6 8 5 6 7 9
The Agency Owner
The making itself is well evidenced: built-in design tokens covering colour, typography, spacing and themes, component variants managing states and sizes, CSS Grid and Flex layouts, and prototypes with clickable hotspots, overlays, scroll simulation and animated transitions, with components publishing as libraries shared and synced across the team. That is most of a design system managed in the tool; we found no public information on library release notes or versioned change tracking, and contrast checking comes through a community plugin rather than something built into the editor. 8 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Tokens for colour, typography and spacing with themes, component variants managing states, styles and sizes, and libraries shared and synced across teams make the design system live inside the tool, with branching flows, overlays and animated transitions on the prototype side. I found no public information on versioned library releases or change notes, and colour contrast checking is documented only through a community plugin rather than built into the editor. 6 9 2 5 6
The Skeptic
Tokens for colour, typography and spacing with themes, component variants, and libraries shared and synced across files are all documented — the core of a design system managed in the tool. I found no public information on library versioning with change notes, conditional prototype logic, or token export in a documented format, and the only contrast checking on display is a community plugin rather than something built into the editor. 6 5 2 9
Collaboration, review & developer handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Working on the same files with colleagues, clients and developers: comments and review, permissions for internal and external people, and the handoff that gives engineering measurements, assets and code rather than screenshots.
0 — Files shared as exports or links with no comments, no permissions beyond view or edit, and no developer view.
3 — Real-time co-editing and comments, but external reviewers need a paid seat or full access, and developers get only exported images.
5 — Comments with mentions and resolution, view-only and comment-only access for guests without a paid seat, permissions per file and project, and an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export.
8 — Branching or review of changes before they reach the main file, version history with restore, a developer mode that links components to code, an API and plugins documented, and named integrations with issue trackers and code tools.
10 — Handoff is a contract between design and code: component properties mapped to code components, token and asset export automated through the API, an audit log of access and sharing, and external access governed by domain, expiry and admin policy.
The Product Designer
Real-time co-editing, comments alongside code output in the inspect view, role and permission management per team and project, unlimited viewers and free developer access, and an inspect mode that shows real HTML, CSS and SVG — that is a genuine handoff rather than screenshots, and the API with access tokens plus the plugin system push it up. But I found no public information on branching or review of changes before they reach the main file, on restoring versions, on named integrations with issue trackers, or on a component-to-code mapping and audit log. 6 7 8 5 2
The Frontend Engineer
Inspect mode outputs real HTML, CSS and SVG and is stated as free for developers, with unlimited viewers needing no paid seat, comments, roles and permissions, plus a documented API with access tokens, plugins and an MCP server. I found no public information on branching or review of changes before the main file, restoring from version history, mapping components to code components, or named integrations with issue trackers and code tools. 2 8 5 7
The Brand Marketer
Real-time co-editing, comments alongside the inspect output, invitation and role management, public sharing of part or all of a file, and an inspect mode that expresses designs as HTML, CSS and SVG at no cost for developers cover the solid middle ground, and unlimited team size with unlimited viewers means guests never become a seat problem. We found no public information on branching or pre-merge review, restoring from version history beyond autosave windows, comments with mentions and resolution, or named integrations with issue trackers. 2 8 5 6 7
The Agency Owner
Handoff is the real thing — a code inspect tab showing HTML, CSS and SVG, free for developers, plus an API with access tokens, plugins and an MCP server, and unlimited viewers and stakeholders looped in without worrying about cost, which is exactly how I want clients and engineers in a project. Comments, roles and permissions, and autosave version history with file recovery windows are documented. We found no public information on branching or review before changes reach the main file, an audit log of access and sharing, or named integrations with issue trackers. 2 8 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Real-time co-editing, invitation and role management, sharing of part or all of a file beyond the team, and an inspect mode that gives developers real HTML, CSS and SVG — free of charge — cover the core of review and handoff. I found no public information on branching or reviewing changes before they reach the main file, restore from version history, or an audit log of access and sharing. 2 7 8 5 6 7
The Skeptic
The handoff is the strongest thing here: a code Inspect tab showing real HTML, CSS and SVG, free for developers, plus an API with access tokens and autosave version history tiered by plan. I found no public information on branching before changes reach the main file, named issue-tracker integrations, or an audit log, and comment-only guest access and per-file permissions do not go beyond general role and permission management. 8 5 7 2 6
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
Share libraries carry colours, typographies and components for brand-specific design, third-party fonts can be uploaded, and templates and libraries are browsable from a panel with a review step on submission to the community. Beyond that the evidence thins: I found no public information on templates with locked elements for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, tagging and search across assets, or any licence, usage and expiry metadata on assets. 6 9 9 8
The Frontend Engineer
Share libraries put colours, typographies and components in one place for brand-specific design, with templates and community libraries browsable from inside the app. I found no public information on a central library for logos and images, brand guidelines published in the tool, locked templates for non-designers, tagging and search across assets, or rights and expiry metadata on licensed assets. 8 9 6 9
The Brand Marketer
Share Libraries put colours, typographies and components in reach of any team member for brand-specific designs, templates are browsable and manageable from a panel inside the app, and community submissions pass a review — but this is where my needs stop being met. We found no public information on locked templates that stop a sales office moving the logo, brand guidelines published in the tool, licence and expiry metadata on assets, or approval workflows and per-market access for new brand material; only a community colour-palette kit and categories are documented. 9 6 7 9
The Agency Owner
Share libraries spread colours, typographies and components across teams for brand-specific designs, and free design-system templates plus community libraries give a starting point. For running a brand across a company, though, we found no public information on locked templates for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, or rights, usage and expiry metadata on licensed assets. 8 9 6 9
The Data Protection Officer
Share Libraries make colours, typographies and components findable and reusable for brand-specific designs, and templates and libraries circulate through a browsable hub, including an asset-colour kit whose demos update when a colour is edited. This is a designer's library rather than governed branding: I found no public information on locked templates for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, or rights, usage and expiry metadata on licensed assets. 8 9 6 9
The Skeptic
Shared libraries of colours, typography and components for brand-specific designs, plus create-and-share templates, are documented — somewhere between a shared asset folder and a real brand library. I found no public information on locked template elements, brand guidelines, tagging and search, or any rights, usage and expiry metadata on assets, and the flagship colour palette kit on display is community-made. 6 8 9 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
This is the strongest story on the page: open-source modules under MPL 2.0, files on open standards (SVG, CSS and HTML), user ownership written into the terms, import from.penpot,.zip,.svg and.json, a Figma exporter in their GitHub repository, and self-hosting documented down to Docker, Helm charts, OpenShift and air-gapped deployments that keep running with standard file formats and no lock-in. Round-trip export without loss is not documented, and I found no public information on transferring removed users' files to the organisation or a deletion timeline after the contract ends. 4 8 10 10 2
The Frontend Engineer
An open-source core under MPL 2.0, self-hosting through Docker, Helm charts, OpenShift, Rancher, TrueNAS or Elestio including on-premise and air-gapped deployments, documented import of the.penpot format plus zip, SVG and JSON, a Figma exporter in the repository, and sole ownership of uploaded content written into the terms. The one piece I could not confirm is round-trip export that keeps components and prototypes without loss, and no deletion timeline after a contract ends is stated. 2 4 8 10 10
The Brand Marketer
The work travels: open-source modules under MPL 2.0 with source access on request, files based on SVG, CSS and HTML plus an open.penpot format with import and download, a Figma exporter in the vendor's repository, and self-hosting from Docker through Kubernetes and OpenShift to fully air-gapped, with self-hosted deployments stated to continue running. The terms say users remain the sole owner of uploaded content. We found no public information on round-trip export preserving components and prototypes without loss, an API reading full file structure, or a deletion timeline after a cloud contract ends. 2 4 8 10 10
The Agency Owner
This is the strongest story on the pages: the terms name the customer as sole owner of uploaded content, files rest on open standards (SVG, CSS and HTML) with an open file format and import from.penpot,.zip,.svg and.json, a Figma exporter sits in the public repository, and self-hosting spans private cloud, on-premise and air-gapped via Docker, Helm, OpenShift, Rancher and TrueNAS. The vendor also states self-hosted deployments keep running and standard file formats prevent lock-in even on the cloud version. We found no public information on lossless round-trip export of components and prototypes, or on a stated deletion timeline after the contract ends. 2 4 8 10 10
The Data Protection Officer
The core is open source under Mozilla Public Licence 2.0, self-hosting is documented from Docker through Helm, OpenShift, Rancher and TrueNAS to air-gapped deployments, and the terms state users remain sole owner of uploaded content while self-hosted deployments keep running and standard file formats avoid lock-in even in the cloud version. Import formats and a Figma exporter in the vendor's GitHub repository cover moving work in and out. I found no public information on a stated deletion timeline after a contract ends or a policy for transferring the files of removed users. 4 8 10 2 10
The Skeptic
The most portable design tool I have read in this category: an open-source codebase under MPL 2.0 with source access at no cost, files based on SVG, CSS and HTML, import of.penpot,.zip,.svg and.json, a documented Figma exporter, and self-hosting from Docker and Kubernetes through air-gapped. Ownership of uploaded content is written into the terms; the gaps are that the Figma import plugin is still "in development" and I found no stated deletion timeline or transfer policy for files after a cancelled contract. 4 8 2 10
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 story is an open MCP server, integration of any agent and any LLM across code-to-design workflows, and a community plugin that names a fine-tuned OpenAI model to turn text descriptions into shapes; the terms do say the vendor analyses only metadata, not the contents themselves. But I found no public information on whether customer files train models, on admin switches for AI features per team or feature, on where AI processing runs, on commercial-use rights for generated output, or on any indemnity — the one named model belongs to a community plugin the vendor explicitly does not guarantee. 1 12 12 4 10
The Frontend Engineer
The AI story is bring-your-own: any agent, any LLM and any AI tooling integrate into the core, with an open MCP server and community plugins such as Rapid Prototyping with AI by ramby.ai running a fine-tuned OpenAI model. I found no public information on whether customer files train models, admin switches for AI features, commercial rights to generated output, content labelling or indemnity; the terms only state that contents are not analysed, metadata alone is. 4 12 1 10 12
The Brand Marketer
The AI story is openness — any agent, any LLM, an open MCP server — plus a community plugin that turns text into shapes using a fine-tuned OpenAI model, shipped with a disclaimer that everything is not guaranteed to work; the terms promise only metadata is analysed, not contents, which is a data statement rather than an AI training statement. We found no public information on whether customer files train models, admin switches for AI features, where AI processing runs, or commercial-use rights and indemnity for generated output — so I cannot answer my trade-fair stand question from these pages. 4 12 1 10 12
The Agency Owner
The AI posture is bring-your-own: any agent, LLM or AI tooling integrates through the open MCP server, and the one generative capability evidenced is a community plugin — Rapid Prototyping with AI by ramby.ai, a fine-tuned OpenAI model that turns a text description into shapes — carrying a disclaimer that the vendor can't guarantee everything works perfectly. The terms say only metadata is analysed and contents are not. We found no public information on whether customer files train models, admin controls to switch AI features off, where AI processing happens, or commercial-use rights over generated output. 4 12 1 10 12
The Data Protection Officer
The generative work I can see is a community plugin by ramby.ai running a fine-tuned OpenAI model with no stated processing location, alongside marketing of open-ended integration of any agent or LLM into design workflows. I found no public information on whether customer files train models, organisation-wide admin controls, commercial use rights for generated output, or indemnity; the terms grant a worldwide licence to host, copy, access, process and transmit user content and say only that metadata, not file contents, is analysed. 4 12 1 12
The Skeptic
The AI story is "integrate any agent, any LLM" plus an open MCP server, and the captured pages say nothing about training on customer files, processing location, commercial rights to output, or indemnity. The one mitigating line sits in the terms — metadata is analyzed but "we will not analyze the text and contents themselves" — and the only named model, a fine-tuned OpenAI model, belongs to a community plugin the vendor says it cannot guarantee. 1 10 4 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 entity named in the terms and page footers is KALEIDOS Subsidiary SL and the provenance note places it in Madrid, Spain; a data processing agreement is published, the cloud offers a choice of EU or US hosting region, and self-hosting reaches private cloud, on-premise and even air-gapped deployments that put design data entirely on customer infrastructure. What holds it back: there is no published subprocessor list with locations and purposes (only payment service providers are named), and I found no public information on where AI processing runs. 3 2 2 10 6
The Frontend Engineer
A choice of hosting region between EU and US, a published data processing agreement, GDPR support, and self-hosting that puts files on the customer's own infrastructure down to air-gapped deployments, with the contracting party named as KALEIDOS Subsidiary SL. What holds it back: I found no published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, no named EU infrastructure for the cloud service, and no statement on where AI processing runs. 2 7 9 10 2 10
The Brand Marketer
The contracting entity is named as KALEIDOS Subsidiary SL in footers and terms, the hosting region can be chosen as EU, a data processing agreement is published, GDPR support is stated, and the self-host option — including air-gapped deployment on infrastructure that is the customer's own — puts file custody largely in my hands. Against that, the captured pages name only payment service providers as processors, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations and purposes or on where AI features are processed. 2 3 4 10 12 10
The Agency Owner
EU and US hosting regions are offered, a data processing agreement is published, GDPR support is stated, and self-hosting puts every byte under the customer's own roof — private cloud, on-premise or air-gapped, optionally behind a VPN or zero-trust layer with the customer's identity provider. But we found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the captured pages, no subprocessor list published with names, locations and purposes beyond payment-provider categories in the privacy policy, and no statement of where AI features process. 2 3 7 10 10
The Data Protection Officer
The footer names Kaleidos Subsidiary SL, a data processing agreement is published, and the pricing page offers a choice of EU or US hosting region, but the captured pages leave the entity's jurisdiction, ownership and where files are stored unconfirmed, and the AI path runs through an OpenAI model with no stated location. I found no public information on a subprocessor list with names, locations and purposes — the privacy policy names payment service providers only as a category — or on named infrastructure behind the EU region. Self-hosting, private cloud and air-gapped options give genuine control over where design data lives, but they do not substitute for disclosure of the cloud chain. 2 3 9 2 10 12
The Skeptic
An EU entity (Kaleidos, Spain) is named in the footer and terms, an EU hosting region is offered alongside US, and a DPA is published with GDPR support claims. But I found no public subprocessor list beyond payment providers, no named hosting infrastructure and no stated AI processing location — and the independent check could not confirm jurisdiction, ownership or residency from the captured pages; self-hosting and air-gapped deployment are the real sovereignty answer on offer. 10 2 3 10 12
Pricing transparency
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 tier structure is legible: a free sign-up, a Professional tier capped at 8 team members with unlimited viewers and up to 10GB of storage, an Unlimited tier with unlimited teams and larger storage, and Enterprise where single sign-on, IP whitelisting and the EU/US region choice land — and viewers and developers being free is genuinely clear. But the Enterprise tier is listed as "check pricing", and I found no public information on per-seat prices for any paid plan or on AI-credit costs, so an annual cost for a given team cannot be computed from what is public. 2 2 10 8
The Frontend Engineer
Plan limits are unusually clear — unlimited viewers alongside team-size caps, storage at up to 10GB and 25GB, version and recovery windows per plan — and the tier carrying SSO, IP whitelisting and hosting region choice is identifiable from the plan pages. But the captured pages give no per-seat price figures at all and Enterprise says check pricing, so a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from them. 2 10 2
The Brand Marketer
The pricing page lays out tier differences — up to 8 team members with unlimited viewers, storage of 10GB and 25GB, autosave versions of 7 and 30 days, file recovery windows — and free sign-up is clear, but we found no public prices for any paid plan and the enterprise tier says only 'Penpot Enterprise - check pricing'. I cannot compute an annual cost for twelve offices from these pages, and we found no public information on AI credits, storage add-ons, or the plan where SSO and admin controls begin. 2 5 10 2 6
The Agency Owner
Tier differences are laid out plainly — team size, unlimited viewers, storage caps, autosave version and file-recovery windows, support response times and self-host sizing — and viewers and developers sit free, which I applaud. But we found no public information on per-seat prices for the paid plans, and the Enterprise tier says only "check pricing", so I cannot compute an annual cost for my fifteen from the published pages. 2 6 10 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page publishes limits — "Up to 8 team members, and unlimited viewers", storage of 10GB and 25GB, and differing autosave and file-recovery windows — and developers inspect code for free, but I found no public price figures for any paid plan, and the Enterprise tier says only "Penpot Enterprise - check pricing". With no seat prices, true-up rules or contract and renewal conditions, a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from the public pages. 2 8 10 2
The Skeptic
Plan boundaries are unusually clear — "Up to 8 team members, and unlimited viewers", storage tiers, version windows, and SSO and IP whitelisting pinned to the Unlimited plan. But across every captured pricing page not one price figure appears, Enterprise is "Penpot Enterprise - check pricing", and self-host support plans are unpriced, so an annual cost cannot be computed from public information. 2 2 6 10
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Penpot
Is Penpot European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Penpot as EU-Made.
Where does Penpot store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Penpot have a free plan?
Yes. Penpot has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Penpot?
As of 16 Oct 2026, the panel rates Sketch (2.5/5), Frontify (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 Sketch (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Penpot 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 — Ownership, Data residency, 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.
- 16 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 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 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
- 3 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 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
- 2 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
- 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
- 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 (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap penpot.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →