Design
ProtoPie
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 6 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by ProtoPie Inc. · www.protopie.io
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.
ProtoPie at a glance
- Vendor
- ProtoPie Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Outside the EU by default source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates ProtoPie 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. ProtoPie, from Studio XID, is an interaction prototyping tool. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
ProtoPie, from Studio XID, is an interaction prototyping tool. Design and prototyping scores cluster at 6 to 7: prototypes driven by logic, variables and formulas, with sensors, voice and cross-device interactions, and reusable components. AI and content rights scores cluster at 5 to 6: retention capped at 90 days at ProtoPie and 30 at providers, though Basic and Pro (Plus) inputs may be used to improve the services with no opt-out described. Brand asset governance is weakest at 0 to 2: no brand kit, locked templates or rights metadata is documented. Sovereignty scores sit at 1 across the bench: AI data is processed through Anthropic PBC in the United States, data residency selections are unsupported, and Studio XID's jurisdiction and prototype hosting are unstated. Collaboration and handoff sits at 4 to 5 and file ownership and portability at 4 to 6: sharing is password-protected with Enterprise link expiry, but we found no public information on comments, co-editing, version history or documented export formats. No paid price appears on any captured page; judges scored close together with no significant split.
Speaks for it
- Prototypes run on logic, variables and formulas, with component instances that follow main-component edits, plus sensors, voice and cross-device interactions
- Figma import is documented in depth, with components carrying full variant support and reimport updating layers while preserving edits made in ProtoPie
- Shared links support password protection, team-space restriction, per-link view-or-download control, and Enterprise-only expiry of 1 day, 3 days or 1 week
- The Handoff button pairs prototypes with interaction recordings so engineers get the interaction specifications they need for development
- The AI terms name the providers, cap retention at 90 days at ProtoPie and 30 days at providers, and state that users own the outputs
Held against it
- Brand asset governance scored 0 to 2, with no public information on a brand kit, locked templates, guidelines or rights and expiry metadata
- Sovereignty scored 1 across the bench: AI data is processed through Anthropic PBC in the United States, data residency selections are listed among unsupported options, and where stored prototypes are hosted is unstated
- For Basic and Pro (Plus) users, ProtoPie AI may use submitted inputs to improve the services, with no opt-out described on the captured pages
- Moving work out: we found no public information on a documented file format, structured export, or what happens to files after a downgrade or cancelled contract
- Review loops: we found no public information on comments, mentions, real-time co-editing, version history or an inspect view with measurements
Best for
- You build advanced interactive prototypes from Figma designs — logic, variables, formulas, sensors, voice, cross-device — and hand them to engineers via interaction recordings and specifications
- You share prototypes with clients or testers under control: passwords, team-space restriction, per-link view-or-download choice, and Enterprise expiry of 1 day, 3 days or 1 week
- You want AI assistance under explicit terms: named providers, 90-day ProtoPie and 30-day provider retention, outputs you own, and an Enterprise organization-level off switch
- You test prototypes on real devices — desktop, iPhone, iPad, Android and Huawei — including per-scene links for platforms like Maze
Avoid if
- You need brand governance inside the tool — brand kits, locked templates for non-designers, rights and expiry metadata; the pages document prototype components and sharing, and brand asset governance scored 0 to 2
- Your review workflow depends on comments, mentions and real-time co-editing; the documented collaboration mode is controlled link sharing with handoff recordings
- Your AI inputs on Basic or Pro (Plus) must not be used for service improvement; the terms reserve that use for those plans with no opt-out described
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Design, prototyping & design systems | 3 of 5 |
| Collaboration, review & developer handoff | 2 of 5 |
| Brand assets & governance | 0.5 of 5 |
| Files, formats & portability | 2 of 5 |
| AI features & rights to the work | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 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 — Not a design tool: a file viewer, a stock library or a single-purpose converter in which nothing is laid out or drawn.
3 — A canvas or editor with templates, shapes, text and images; reusable components, shared styles and prototyping are basic or not described.
5 — Reusable components or styles shared across files, responsive or auto layout, and clickable prototypes or presentations linking screens.
8 — A design system managed in the tool: team libraries that update where they are used, variables or tokens for colour, type and spacing with modes or themes, component variants and properties, prototypes with transitions and conditional logic, and library changes published 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
The component work is genuinely mature — instances that update from the main component, per-instance overrides, instance swapping, variable overrides and variants carried over from Figma — and prototypes are built on logic, variables and formulas, which is exactly the flow-testing depth I want. What the captured pages do not show is the system layer: no tokens with modes or themes, no team library others pull from, and library changes are not described as versioned, reviewable releases. 1 2 3 6
The Frontend Engineer
Components are a real system here: main-component editing, instances that update from it, overrides that persist through edits, slash grouping, swappable instances, overridable variable initial values and full variant support on import, plus Auto Layout on containers, components and multi-object selections — and prototypes run on logic, variables and formulas rather than plain click-through. The library the docs mention is a local one, and I found no public information on team libraries that publish with versions or on colour, type and spacing tokens with themes, so the design-system layer stops short of governed. 1 2 3 6
The Brand Marketer
Reusable components whose instances update from the main component, auto layout on containers and objects, and prototypes driven by logic, variables and formulas are all well documented, and Figma import even carries variants. But we found no public information on team libraries shared across files or colour, type and spacing tokens with themes and versioned publishing, which is what would keep a dozen offices producing the same look. 1 2 3 6
The Agency Owner
The prototyping engine is the real thing — logic, variables and formulas driving interactions, native device sensors, voice and cross-device flows — and components have depth: instances that follow main-component edits, property and variable overrides, instance swapping, slash grouping and variant support, with Auto Layout across containers and components. The captured pages do not show design-system governance in the tool — team libraries publishing versioned updates where they are used, or colour, type and spacing tokens with themes — and it leans on designs imported from Figma rather than a full drawing toolset, which keeps it below the top band. 1 2 3 6
The Data Protection Officer
The help pages document reusable components with variants, overrides, instance swapping and a component editing mode, auto layout for containers and objects, and prototypes driven by logic, variables, formulas and conditional transitions. We found no public information on team libraries that update across files, colour, type and spacing tokens with themes, or versioned publishing of library changes, which is what would lift this into a governed design system. 1 2 3 6
The Skeptic
The component engine is the real thing — main components, instances that update, overrides that survive main-component edits, instance swap and overridable variables — with Figma import keeping variants and reimport updating layers while preserving ProtoPie edits, plus Auto Layout and scene-linked prototypes with transitions and conditional logic. The documented library is the user's local library, though: we found no public information on team libraries published with versions, or colour, type and spacing tokens with themes or modes. 1 2 3 6
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 — A single-user tool: files are worked on alone and passed on as exports.
3 — Files shared by link with comments or real-time co-editing; guest access, permissions and a developer view are basic or not described.
5 — Real-time co-editing, comments with mentions, sharing with view or edit rights per file or project, and an inspect or developer view with measurements and asset export.
8 — Guests and reviewers who comment without a paid seat, version history with restore, branching or review of changes before they reach the main file, a developer mode that links components to code, a documented API and plugins, 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
Sharing is governed better than most — view and download control, password protection, team-space restriction and link expiry on the Enterprise plan — and the developer story is real, with interaction recordings paired to prototypes so engineers get interaction specifications. Review itself is thin: comments, mentions and co-editing are not described, and no version history, branching, documented API or issue-tracker integrations appear on the captured pages. 1 4 5
The Frontend Engineer
Sharing controls are concrete — per-prototype choice of who can view and download, password protection, restriction to team space, and Enterprise link expiry from one day to one week — and handoff is a first-class feature: interaction recordings pair with the prototype so engineers get the interaction specifications. But I found no public information on comments, co-editing, version history or an inspect view with measurements, nothing on whether guests can review without a paid seat, and integrations appear only as a named MCP capability rather than a documented API. 1 4 5 7
The Brand Marketer
Sharing is covered properly — view and download controls, password protection, team-space restriction and link expiry on the Enterprise plan — and engineers get interaction recordings with interaction specifications rather than screenshots. We found no public information on comments with mentions, real-time co-editing, guest reviewers without a paid seat, or an inspect view with measurements and asset export. 1 4 5 7
The Agency Owner
External review is well governed: password-protected links, Enterprise link expiry of 1 day, 3 days or 1 week, access restricted to team space members, and per-link control over who can view or download; the Handoff button pairs prototypes with interaction recordings that "give engineers all the interaction specifications they need for development." We found no public information on real-time co-editing, comments or mentions, version history with restore, or comment access for guests without a paid seat — the client review loop my studio depends on — so this stops short of the top band. 1 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Prototypes are shared by link with password protection, team-space restriction, per-scene links and Enterprise-only link expiry of 1 day, 3 days or 1 week, and engineer handoff is documented through the Handoff button's interaction recordings and specification pairing. We found no public information on comments with mentions, real-time co-editing, guests or reviewers commenting without a paid seat, version history with restore, or a documented API and issue-tracker integrations, so collaboration sits at controlled link sharing rather than co-editing. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
Sharing controls are genuinely documented — view-or-download choice, password protection, team-space restriction, per-scene links, and Enterprise-only link expiry of one day, three days or one week — and handoff to engineers is documented as interaction recordings and interaction specifications. We found no public information on co-editing, comments with mentions, or an inspect view giving developers measurements and asset export. 1 4 5
Brand assets & governance
n/r
n/r
n/r
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 assets of any kind; the product has no library, kit or template that a team uses together.
3 — A shared folder, brand kit or template set with logos, colours and fonts; locking, guidelines and asset metadata are basic or not described.
5 — A central brand kit or library with logos, colours and fonts, team templates that non-designers can fill, and the ability to lock brand elements or restrict who edits templates.
8 — Brand guidelines published in the tool, tagging and search across assets, approval workflows for new assets and template output, version control on assets, rights, usage and expiry metadata with warnings on expiry, 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 not rated — no public information
We found no public information on brand asset governance in the captured pages — nothing on a brand kit, guidelines, locked templates, or rights and expiry metadata on assets; the pages describe an interaction prototyping tool with reusable components and a community prototype gallery. 1 2 5
The Frontend Engineer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on brand asset governance: the captured pages show no brand kit, central asset library, team templates or licence and expiry metadata, and the public gallery of community prototypes is a showcase rather than a library a company runs its brand through. The sharing and component pages I read bear on prototypes and reuse, not on brand management. 1 5
The Brand Marketer
The captured pages present an advanced prototyping tool: they describe a local component library and prototypes shared with team spaces, and we found no public information on a brand kit, locked templates non-designers can fill, guidelines inside the tool, or licence and expiry metadata on any asset. Nothing here answers my flyer problem across twelve offices. 1 5 6
The Agency Owner not rated — no public information
We found no public information on brand asset governance — no brand kit, central logo or template library, guidelines, template locking, or rights and expiry metadata appears in the captured pages, which cover prototyping, components, cloud sharing, Figma import and the AI terms. As an agency handing brands to clients, I could not confirm any of this from what the vendor publishes. 1 2 5 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages describe a prototyping tool whose components are reusable within a prototype and whose main components export to a local library on the user's machine. We found no public information on a central brand kit, brand guidelines, locked templates for non-designers, or rights and expiry metadata on licensed assets. 1 2 6
The Skeptic
The shared library the help pages document holds prototype components and their variants — design reuse, not brand management. We found no public information on a brand kit of logos, colours and fonts, guidelines, locked templates for non-designers, or licence, usage and expiry metadata on assets. 2 6
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 — Work cannot leave the product: no export or download of designs is offered.
3 — Export of designs as images or PDF per page or frame; export of whole files with structure and access after cancellation are basic or not described.
5 — Export to PNG, PDF and SVG with vectors and text kept, whole files downloadable to a local copy, and files of a downgraded or cancelled account addressed in the help centre or terms.
8 — An open or publicly documented file format, import from and export to other named tools documented, bulk export of a team’s files, an API that reads full file structure, files of removed users transferred to the organisation by policy, and a stated retention and 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
Import from Figma is documented in real depth — structure, constraints, Auto Layout and components with variants, plus reimport that preserves edits made in ProtoPie — and an Enterprise On-premise plan and a Perpetual plan are both named in the AI terms, pointing to local deployment. What the pages do not show: export formats, a documented file format or API for reading file structure, or any statement on what happens to files after a downgrade or cancellation. 6 7 8
The Frontend Engineer
The Figma import pipeline is documented at a depth I can build against: plugin and legacy paths, vector and text layers kept as SVG, constraints and core Auto Layout carried over, components with variants through Component Mode into a local library, and reimport that updates layers while preserving my ProtoPie edits. Outbound there is a share setting controlling who may download the prototype and an Enterprise On-premise plan named in the terms, but I found no documented export format out of the tool, no API that reads full file structure, and nothing on what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract. 5 6 7 8
The Brand Marketer
Figma import is documented in real depth — components, variants, auto layout and constraints carried over, with ProtoPie edits preserved on reimport — and prototypes can be restricted for download or exported as scene, object or flattened. We found no public information on an open or documented file format, bulk export of a team's work, or what happens to files after a downgrade or cancelled contract. 5 6 7 8
The Agency Owner
Getting designs in is well documented: the Figma plugin imports locally, keeps vectors as SVG, brings Auto Layout properties, constraints and components with full variant support, and reimport updates layers while preserving edits made in ProtoPie, with main components landing in a local library. Moving work out is where the pages go quiet — we found no public information on an open or documented file format, export to other tools with structure intact, an API that reads files, or what happens to files after a downgrade or cancellation — though an Enterprise On-premise plan is named and per-link download control exists. 5 6 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Import from Figma is documented in depth — sections, frames and objects as scenes, vectors and text as SVG, constraints, core auto layout, and components with full variant support — with reimport that updates layers while preserving edits made in ProtoPie, and share links can permit prototype download. We found no public information on export to PNG, PDF or SVG with layers and components kept, whole-file download to a local copy, an open or documented file format, or what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract. 1 5 6 7
The Skeptic
Getting work in is documented in depth — Figma import with a property list, components with full variant support, and reimport that updates layers while preserving ProtoPie edits — and the share dialog controls who can download the prototype. We found no public information on a documented file format or export out of ProtoPie with structure preserved, or on what happens to files after a downgrade or cancelled contract; the AI terms name an Enterprise On-premise plan but the captured pages do not say what it includes. 5 6 8
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 — The terms state that customer files train the vendor’s models with no opt-out, or that generated output may not be used commercially.
3 — AI features described on an AI or help page with a general statement on responsible use or data handling; training on customer files, admin controls and output rights are basic or not described.
5 — A statement on whether customer content trains the models (excluded, or with a documented opt-out), AI features that an admin can switch off for the organisation, and commercial use of generated output addressed in the terms or AI page.
8 — Training excluded by default for business plans, model providers and 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 terms are unusually concrete: Anthropic and OpenAI are named as providers, processing runs through Anthropic in the United States, retention is capped at 90 days for ProtoPie and 30 days at providers, users own the outputs, and Enterprise administrators can switch AI off at organization level. The sore point is training: for Basic and Pro (Plus) users the inputs may be used to improve the services with no opt-out described, and outputs are provided "as is" with no indemnity. 1 8
The Frontend Engineer
The AI terms are unusually specific: Anthropic PBC and OpenAI in the United States with a 30-day provider retention, processing stated to run through Anthropic PBC in the United States, 90-day retention on ProtoPie's side, outputs that I own with rights retained in my inputs, and an organization-level on/off switch for Enterprise admins. Against that, on Basic and Pro the terms say ProtoPie AI "may use the Inputs you submit or make available to improve our Services" with no opt-out documented for that use, everything is provided as-is with all faults, and no indemnity for generated output appears. 1 8
The Brand Marketer
The AI terms answer my trade-fair question directly — users retain all rights in their inputs and own the outputs — and name the providers with locations (Anthropic and OpenAI in the United States, Microsoft and Alibaba for mainland China residents), retention periods and an organization-level on/off switch for Enterprise administrators. It stops short of comfort because inputs from Basic and Pro users may be used to improve the services with no opt-out described for those plans, we found no public information on content credentials or any IP indemnity, and everything is provided as-is with no warranties. 1 8
The Agency Owner
The AI terms are unusually concrete for a buyer: "you own the Outputs", inputs stay the customer's, Anthropic and OpenAI are named with all data "processed through Anthropic PBC in the United States", retention is capped at 90 days at ProtoPie and 30 at providers, Enterprise admins can disable AI organisation-wide, and credit pooling and reset rules are spelled out per plan. Two things keep it from the top band: for Basic and Pro (Plus) users ProtoPie AI "may use the Inputs you submit or make available to improve our Services" with no documented opt-out, and output is provided as-is — we found no public information on an IP indemnity, content labelling or per-feature admin controls. 8
The Data Protection Officer
The AI terms are explicit where I need them to be: every model provider is named with its location — Anthropic PBC and OpenAI in the United States, Microsoft Azure Global and Alibaba Cloud for mainland China residents — retention is capped at 90 days for ProtoPie and 30 days for providers, customers retain their inputs and own the outputs, and Enterprise administrators can switch AI off at the organisation level. However, for Basic and Pro (Plus) users the terms state ProtoPie may use submitted inputs to improve its services, and we found no public information on an organisation-wide opt-out from that use, content credentials or labelling on generated output, or any IP indemnity — the AI is instead provided 'as is' with all faults. 1 8
The Skeptic
The AI terms go further than most in this category: named providers with locations, ProtoPie's 90-day and the providers' 30-day retention, immediate deletion for China users, and "you own the Outputs" with rights retained on inputs. Against that, for Basic and Pro users ProtoPie AI "may use the Inputs you submit or make available to improve our Services" with no opt-out on any captured page, the admin switch is organisation-level and Enterprise only, and outputs are provided "as is" with all faults — we found no indemnity on any plan. 1 8
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 — Proven non-EU on every dimension the evidence covers: non-EU contracting entity and non-EU hosting, with no EU option stated.
3 — One European element proven: an EU contracting entity or EU representative, EU data residency (even if only on an enterprise plan), or a published DPA, with the rest of the chain unstated.
5 — EU hosting stated for files as standard or selectable and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a DPA offered; the subprocessor chain (AI, rendering, support) is unstated or partly non-EU.
8 — EU contracting entity, files, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and the processing location of AI features 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 pages name Studio XID as the company but never state where it is registered or where prototypes are hosted; the only proven processing location is AI, which runs through Anthropic PBC and OpenAI in the United States — on Microsoft Azure and Alibaba Cloud for mainland China — with the terms stating that data residency selections are not offered. We found no European element, whether an EU entity, EU hosting or a published DPA, on the captured pages. 1 8
The Frontend Engineer
Nothing captured places any part of the chain in Europe: the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where prototypes are hosted, a DPA and certifications are all unstated in the material I read. The one dimension the terms do pin down is AI processing, which runs through Anthropic PBC in the United States with data residency selections listed among unsupported features, so no European element is proven anywhere. 1 8
The Brand Marketer
The proven dimensions are all non-European: all AI data is processed through Anthropic PBC in the United States, data-residency selections are listed among unsupported options, and every named AI provider sits in the US or China. The contracting entity's jurisdiction and where our stored prototypes are hosted remain unknown, and no European element appears in the evidence. 1 8
The Agency Owner
The one chain the pages prove is not European: AI data is "processed through Anthropic PBC in the United States", with OpenAI, Microsoft Azure and Alibaba Cloud as named providers, and data-residency selections and region-specific storage are listed as unsupported. We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction (the pages name Studio XID), where stored prototypes are hosted, or a published DPA — so for my European clients nothing here can be evidenced as European. 8 1
The Data Protection Officer
The AI terms state that all AI data is processed through Anthropic PBC in the United States and list data residency selections, region-specific storage and on-premise models as unavailable, and every named subprocessor — Anthropic, OpenAI, Microsoft and Alibaba Cloud — is American or Chinese. We found no public information on the contracting entity Studio XID's jurisdiction, where stored prototypes are hosted, a published data processing agreement, or any European entity, EU hosting option or EU certification in the chain. 1 8
The Skeptic
The only dimension these pages prove runs against Europe: AI processing goes through Anthropic PBC in the United States, and "data residency selections" are listed among unsupported options. Studio XID's jurisdiction, where stored prototypes are hosted, and any data processing agreement are unstated, and no European element appears on any captured page. 1 8
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 public "from" price or one priced plan, per seat or flat.
5 — Per-seat prices public for the main plans with the billing period stated and the main features per plan listed.
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, the plan that unlocks SSO and admin controls named, and VAT treatment stated.
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
Plan names are public — Free, Perpetual, Individual, Pro, Enterprise and Enterprise On-premise — and the terms explain which plans allow team members and how AI credits pool and reset, but we found no prices on the captured pages: no per-seat figure, no billing period, no currency, and the homepage steers buyers to booking a demo. The captured pages also give different signals on AI credits, with the homepage marketing interactions "credit-free" while the terms describe pooled credits per plan. 1 4 5 8
The Frontend Engineer
The plan ladder is public by name — Free, Perpetual, Individual, Basic, Pro (Plus), Enterprise, Enterprise On-premise — with team membership tied to Pro and Enterprise, AI excluded from four plans, and credit pooling and reset by billing anniversary spelled out. But I found no price figure on any page captured, so an annual cost for a given mix of editors and viewers can't be computed from this material. 1 4 5 8
The Brand Marketer
A free plan is public — "Start prototyping today 100% free" with interaction recordings and shareable links — and the plan family plus AI credit pooling and monthly reset rules are visible across the pages. But we found no public information on paid seat prices, billing periods or VAT treatment, so I cannot compute a year's cost for my team from what was captured. 1 4 5 8
The Agency Owner
What is public: a 100% free plan with listed features (interaction recordings, shareable links), a free trial, which plans allow team members (Pro and Enterprise), and detailed AI credit pooling and monthly reset rules per plan. What is not: a single paid price — no per-seat figure, billing period, VAT treatment, or viewer and guest pricing appears on the captured pages — so I cannot compute an annual cost for a client team from public pages alone. 1 4 5 8
The Data Protection Officer
The pages document the plan structure — a free tier with interaction recordings and shareable links, plus Basic, Pro (Plus), Individual, Perpetual, Enterprise and Enterprise On-premise, with team members limited to Pro and Enterprise and AI credits pooled at team or organisation level resetting monthly on the billing anniversary. We found no public price for any paid plan on the captured pages, so an annual cost for a given team cannot be computed from public information. 1 4 5 8
The Skeptic
The captured pages name Free, Perpetual, Individual, Basic, Pro (Plus), Enterprise and Enterprise On-premise plans, and document AI credit pooling by team or organisation with resets on each user's billing anniversary — but we found no price figure on any captured page, so a buyer cannot begin to compute a year's cost from the public information we read. 1 4 8
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 6 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Outside the EU ⚠ unverified | 0/4 pts | 8 Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about ProtoPie
Is ProtoPie European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where ProtoPie is based.
Where does ProtoPie store data?
ProtoPie stores customer data outside the EU by default, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
Does ProtoPie have a free plan?
Yes. ProtoPie has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to ProtoPie?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates Penpot (3.5/5), Sketch (3/5) and Collaboard (3/5) highest among the other 21 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: ProtoPie alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Hosting location. The statement sits in the ProtoPie AI Terms and covers AI processing only, while the other excerpts are silent on where general ProtoPie Cloud customer data (e.g., stored prototypes) is hosted.
- Weak sourcing — Hosting options. 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
- 3 support 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 legal 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (8)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.protopie.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.protopie.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.protopie.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap www.protopie.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap www.protopie.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.protopie.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.protopie.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap www.protopie.io Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →