whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Design

Penpot

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Kaleidos Subsidiary S.L. · penpot.app

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

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

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

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

Penpot alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Reviews every tool where unreleased products, customer screenshots and employee photos end up. Wants the contracting entity and hosting region named, the AI providers on the subprocessor list, and training on customer files excluded for the whole organisation in the terms — not behind a toggle each user has to find.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Panel median The Data Protection Officer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Data Protection Officer
Design, prototyping & design systems 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Collaboration, review & developer handoff 3 of 5 3 of 5
Brand assets & governance 2 of 5 2 of 5
Files, formats & portability 4.5 of 5 4.5 of 5
AI features & rights to the work 1 of 5 1 of 5
European sovereignty 2.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 1.5 of 5 1 of 5

Design, prototyping & design systems

How this is scored

The making itself: vector and layout tools, interactive prototypes, and the shared components, styles and tokens that keep a company's products and materials consistent — judged on what the feature and help pages document, not on showcase images.

0 — A single-purpose editor with no reusable components, no shared styles and no prototyping.

3 — Templates and basic shapes or layouts, with styles saved per file only and prototyping limited to linking screens.

5 — Reusable components and shared styles across files, responsive or auto layout, clickable prototypes with transitions, and team libraries that update where they are used.

8 — A design system managed in the tool: variables or tokens for colour, type and spacing with modes or themes, component variants and properties, prototypes with conditional logic, and library change notes with versions.

10 — The design system is a governed product: library releases versioned and reviewable, token export in a documented format for development, usage analytics per component, and accessibility checks such as contrast built into the editor.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Collaboration, review & developer handoff

How this is scored

Working on the same files with colleagues, clients and developers: comments and review, permissions for internal and external people, and the handoff that gives engineering measurements, assets and code rather than screenshots.

0 — Files shared as exports or links with no comments, no permissions beyond view or edit, and no developer view.

3 — Real-time co-editing and comments, but external reviewers need a paid seat or full access, and developers get only exported images.

5 — Comments with mentions and resolution, view-only and comment-only access for guests without a paid seat, permissions per file and project, and an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export.

8 — Branching or review of changes before they reach the main file, version history with restore, a developer mode that links components to code, an API and plugins documented, and named integrations with issue trackers and code tools.

10 — Handoff is a contract between design and code: component properties mapped to code components, token and asset export automated through the API, an audit log of access and sharing, and external access governed by domain, expiry and admin policy.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Brand assets & governance

How this is scored

Keeping a brand usable and correct across a company: a central library for logos, images and templates, brand guidelines people can find, locked templates that let non-designers produce material, and rights and expiry metadata on every licensed asset.

0 — No shared asset library; logos and images are uploaded per file by whoever needs them.

3 — A shared folder of assets and some templates, but no guidelines, no locking of brand elements and no metadata beyond file names.

5 — A central brand library with logos, colours and fonts, templates with locked elements for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, and tagging and search across assets.

8 — Rights, usage and expiry metadata on assets with warnings or automatic withdrawal on expiry, approval workflows for new assets and template output, version control on assets, and access per team, market or partner.

10 — Brand governance is auditable: every asset carries its licence, owner and permitted use, usage of each asset is tracked across files and channels, distribution to external partners is logged, and the whole library with metadata is exportable in a documented format.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Files, formats & portability

How this is scored

Whether the work can leave: open or documented file formats, export that keeps layers, vectors and components, offline or self-hosted options, and what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract.

0 — Files exist only in the vendor's cloud in a proprietary format, export is a flat image, and nothing is said about files after cancellation.

3 — Export to PNG, PDF and SVG per frame, but no export of whole files with structure, and files after a downgrade or cancellation addressed only in general terms.

5 — Whole files exportable to a local or documented format, vector and layered export (SVG, PDF) with text kept as text, bulk export of a team's files, and a stated period during which files remain accessible after cancellation.

8 — An open or publicly documented file format, export and import with other tools documented, an API that reads full file structure, files of removed users transferred to the organisation by policy, and a stated deletion timeline after the contract ends.

10 — Portability is built in: an open-source or openly specified format, self-hosting or a local-first option, round-trip export without loss of components and prototypes, and the customer's ownership of all files and their export rights written into the terms.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

AI features & rights to the work

How this is scored

What the vendor's AI does with the customer's files and what the customer may do with the AI's output: training on customer content and the opt-out, the models and where they run, commercial use of generated images, stock licences and indemnity.

0 — Generative features with no statement on training on customer files, no named models, and no word on whether output may be used commercially.

3 — An AI page that promises responsibility but leaves open whether customer files train models, and output rights are stated only for some features or only in community terms.

5 — Training on customer content excluded or opt-out documented, AI features switchable by an admin for the organisation, model providers named, and commercial use of generated output permitted in the terms.

8 — Training excluded by default for business plans, the processing location of AI features stated, generated content labelled or carrying content credentials, stock and template licences stated per asset type, and an IP indemnity for generated output on a named plan.

10 — AI is governed in writing: a per-feature list of models, providers and locations, admin controls per team and feature, a log of AI use, training exclusion and output ownership in the contract terms, and indemnity and licence limits published in full.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity is, where design files, brand assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.

0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where files are hosted, and subprocessors unnamed.

3 — EU data residency available only on an enterprise plan or not at all, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI features send files outside the EU without an explained safeguard.

5 — EU hosting stated for files, a DPA available, but the contracting entity or significant parts of the chain (AI, rendering, support) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.

8 — EU contracting entity, files, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the annual cost for their team from public pages alone — which seat types exist and what each may do, how viewers and guests are billed, how seats are added and trued up, AI credits, and the plan where SSO, admin controls and brand features begin.

0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.

3 — A per-seat price for an entry plan, but the seat types, the billing of guests and reviewers, and the plan needed for business features are unclear.

5 — Plans priced per seat type with their main features, but at least one commonly incurred cost (seat upgrades on request, AI credits, storage, brand or SSO add-ons) is missing or "on request".

8 — Every plan and seat type priced, free viewers and guests stated with their limits, how and when added seats are billed explained, AI credits and storage priced or included explicitly, and the plan that unlocks SSO and admin controls named.

10 — Complete cost computability: annual cost derivable for a given mix of editors, viewers and guests, true-up and auto-upgrade rules published, every add-on priced publicly, and contract term, renewal and downgrade conditions stated.

Report an error

The 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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

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

Ownership Not determined ⚠ 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

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

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

Sources (12)

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

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