Design
UXPin
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by UXPin Inc. · www.uxpin.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
UXPin at a glance
- Vendor
- UXPin Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates UXPin 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. UXPin, a browser-based design tool from UXPin Inc., a Delaware corporation, is judged strongest at prototyping and developer handoff and weakest on sovereignty and pricing transparency. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
UXPin, a browser-based design tool from UXPin Inc., a Delaware corporation, is judged strongest at prototyping and developer handoff and weakest on sovereignty and pricing transparency. Design and prototyping scores cluster at 7-8, resting on variables, conditional logic, expressions and states, in-editor WCAG contrast checks with colour-blindness simulation, and colour and font tokens that translate into code. Collaboration and handoff sits at 6-7 on code-backed components, generated specs and CSS, React export with dependencies, named Git, Storybook, npm, Jira and Slack integrations, and guest review without sign-up. Sovereignty scores sit at 1: we found no public information on where files, assets or AI prompts are hosted or on a subprocessor list, beyond a privacy-policy rule restricting personal-data transfers to US Data Privacy Framework-listed or GDPR-covered entities. Pricing transparency spans 2-4: the published ladder — Free, Core, Growth, Enterprise — lists AI credits of 50, 200/month and 500/month, custom for Enterprise, but we found no public information on per-seat prices. AI and content rights spans 3-4 between named-model disclosure and unanswered training, opt-out and indemnity questions.
Speaks for it
- Prototyping with variables, conditional logic, expressions and element states, plus in-editor WCAG contrast checks and colour-blindness simulation
- Code-backed components with generated specs, CSS and React export with dependencies, and named Git, Storybook, npm, Jira and Slack integrations
- Stakeholders and clients approve or reject and leave feedback via a shared link without signing up
- Terms state the subscriber owns their data, with removal 30 days after termination and a machine-readable copy available by email
- AI models named per plan — GPT 5-mini, 5.1, Claude Haiku 4.5 — with AI credits published as 50, 200/month and 500/month
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 1: we found no public information on where files, assets or AI prompts are hosted or on a subprocessor list
- We found no public information on per-seat prices for any paid plan, viewer or guest billing, or seat true-ups, with Enterprise pricing custom
- We found no public information on whether customer files train AI models, opt-outs, processing location, output labelling, or indemnity and commercial-use rights
- We found no public information on whole-file export in a layered or documented format, the general exit being an email request for a machine-readable copy
- We found no public information on locked templates for non-designers, tagging or search across assets, or licence and expiry metadata
Best for
- Your design and engineering teams work from the same code-backed components and want React code with dependencies out of the design file
- You need stakeholders and clients to review, approve or reject prototypes from a shared link without creating accounts
- You are moving Sketch files into a cloud editor and need imported text and shapes to stay editable without Sketch installed
Avoid if
- You must confirm where files and AI prompts are hosted, or review a subprocessor list, before procurement — sovereignty scores sit at 1
- You need published per-seat prices to budget an annual team cost before committing; pricing transparency scores span 2-4
- You need locked templates for non-designers plus licence and expiry metadata on brand assets
- You require answers on AI training use, opt-outs or indemnity for generated output before adopting AI features
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Design, prototyping & design systems | 3.5 of 5 |
| Collaboration, review & developer handoff | 3.5 of 5 |
| Brand assets & governance | 2 of 5 |
| Files, formats & portability | 2 of 5 |
| AI features & rights to the work | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 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
Prototypes behave like the end product — variables, expressions, conditional logic, interactive form fields, states and video are all documented — and the design system is managed rather than decorative: master components sync back to the library, color and font tokens import from JSON or a CDN and propagate to components, and WCAG contrast checks with color-blindness simulation sit in the tool. What holds it below the top band is system governance: spacing and padding tokens are only planned, and we found no public information on token modes or themes, component variants as a named capability, or versioned library releases with change notes. 1 2 5 6 8 9
The Frontend Engineer
Prototypes run on variables, conditional logic and expressions, states work like variants, and team libraries sync master components back into the design system — plus contrast checks and a colour-blindness simulator are built in. My gripe is tokens: colour and font tokens are released with JSON/CDN import, but spacing, padding and border tokens and the Style Dictionary and design-token-format connections are only announced as future work, and we found no public information on themes or modes, library release notes, or per-component usage analytics. 1 2 5 6 8 9
The Brand Marketer
This is a design system managed in the tool: design tokens for colours and fonts that translate into code and update every component, master components that sync straight back into the library, component states, and prototypes with variables, expressions and conditional logic. Contrast checking against WCAG and colour-blindness simulation are built in, which I welcome for keeping twelve offices on-brand. We found no public information on token themes or spacing tokens beyond items announced as in the works, on per-component usage analytics, or on versioned library releases with review. 1 2 5 6 9
The Agency Owner
Prototyping is the real thing — variables, expressions, conditional logic, element states and WCAG contrast checks in the editor — and team libraries with master-component sync keep systems consistent across projects. Tokens are released for colors and fonts with JSON or CDN import, but tokens for spacing and borders are only planned, and we found no public information on token modes or themes, library release notes, or per-component usage analytics. 1 5 6 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Prototypes carry conditional logic, variables and expressions over code-backed components, with team libraries and master-component sync keeping the design system aligned, and WCAG contrast and colour-blindness checks documented inside the editor. Tokens are live for colours and fonts with spacing, padding and border tokens only announced as planned, and we found no public information on token themes or modes or on versioned library release notes. 1 2 5 6 8 9
The Skeptic
Prototyping earns its keep: conditional logic, variables, expressions and states are documented, and WCAG contrast checking with colour-blindness simulation sits in the editor. The design-system half is unfinished on the vendor's own token page — tokens ship for colours and fonts while spacing, padding and borders are "in the works", with Theo, Style Dictionary and the design token format module still future plans. We found no public information on component usage analytics or reviewable library releases, and version history is rationed by plan. 1 2 5 6 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
Handoff is the strongest part: Merge's code-backed components, downloadable specs, automatic CSS and React code export with dependencies give developers real code rather than screenshots, and Git, Storybook, npm, Jira and Slack integrations are named. Review works too — comments with tagging, Google-Docs-style co-editing, guest feedback without sign-up, approval or rejection by link, and permission management for team, stakeholders and reviewers. We found no public information on branching or review of changes before they reach the main file, and version history is listed by retention length without a stated restore. 1 2 7 8 9
The Frontend Engineer
Merge is the closest thing to my wish list: the design components are the same code components, devs get redlines, specs, CSS and React with dependencies, and Git, Storybook, npm and Jira are named integrations. But we found no public information on a documented public API, branching or review before changes hit the main file, restore from version history, or an access audit log, and nothing on the captured pages says whether inspect is available without a paid seat. 1 2 4 7 8 9
The Brand Marketer
Handoff is the strong suit: automatically generated specs and CSS, downloadable measurements and assets, code-backed components with React code export, and named integrations with Jira, Slack, Git, Storybook and npm. Stakeholders and reviewers give feedback and approve or reject via a shared link without signing up, with permissions set per role. We found no public information on branching or review before changes reach the main file, on restoring past versions (history runs 7 days, 30 days or unlimited depending on plan), or on a documented API. 2 7 8 9
The Agency Owner
Clients approve or reject straight from a shared link without signing up, permissions are set per role for team, stakeholders and reviewers, and handoff gives developers measurements, specs and production-ready React code tied to Git, Storybook, npm and Jira. We found no public information on branching or review before changes reach the main file, on comment resolution, or on a documented API. 2 7 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Real-time co-editing, comment tagging, guest feedback without sign-up, permission controls for team, stakeholders and reviewers, and an inspect view with redlines, downloadable specs and production-ready React code make review and handoff concrete. Git, Storybook, npm and Jira integrations are named; we found no public information on branching, restore from version history, or a documented API and plugin platform. 1 2 7 8 9
The Skeptic
Handoff is the pitch and it holds: code-backed components, automatically generated specs, downloadable measurements and CSS, React export with dependencies, plus Jira, Slack, FullStory, Git, Storybook and npm — and reviewers can comment and approve without an account. We found no public information on comment resolution, restoring from version history, branching or reviewing changes before they reach the main file, or a documented API; the pages instead boast that no plug-ins are needed. 1 2 7 8 9
Brand assets & governance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keeping a brand usable and correct across a company: a central library for logos, images and templates, brand guidelines people can find, locked templates that let non-designers produce material, and rights and expiry metadata on every licensed asset.
0 — No shared asset library; logos and images are uploaded per file by whoever needs them.
3 — A shared folder of assets and some templates, but no guidelines, no locking of brand elements and no metadata beyond file names.
5 — A central brand library with logos, colours and fonts, templates with locked elements for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, and tagging and search across assets.
8 — Rights, usage and expiry metadata on assets with warnings or automatic withdrawal on expiry, approval workflows for new assets and template output, version control on assets, and access per team, market or partner.
10 — Brand governance is auditable: every asset carries its licence, owner and permitted use, usage of each asset is tracked across files and channels, distribution to external partners is logged, and the whole library with metadata is exportable in a documented format.
The Product Designer
Team libraries give one shared place for the components, colors and text styles that define a brand, and a style guide collects colors, fonts and assets in one view. We found no public information on templates with locked elements for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, tagging and search across assets, or rights, usage and expiry metadata on any asset. 6 8 9
The Frontend Engineer
Team libraries share components, colours and text styles across projects and the style guide collects colours, fonts and assets in one place, which clears the shared-folder bar. We found no public information on locked templates for non-designers, licence, rights or expiry metadata on assets, tagging and search across the library, or approval workflows for assets rather than whole projects. 2 6 8 9
The Brand Marketer
Team Libraries holding components, colours and text styles that define your brand, a style guide that gathers all colours, fonts and assets, and documentation inside design systems give the beginnings of a central brand home with published guidance. But my sales offices need locked templates non-designers can safely use, and we found no public information on locking brand elements in templates, on tagging or search across assets, or on any licence, usage or expiry metadata on images; the approve-or-reject flow covers shared projects, and we found no public information on approvals for new assets or template output. 2 6 8 9
The Agency Owner
Team libraries store the components, colors and text styles that define a brand, and design systems carry documentation explaining decisions, which is a usable central library. We found no public information on locked templates for non-designers, tagging or search across assets, or rights and expiry metadata on licensed material, so governance beyond the shared library is not evidenced. 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
Team libraries hold the components, colours and text styles that define a brand, with a style guide and documentation inside design systems to explain decisions. We found no public information on locked templates for non-designers, on rights, usage or expiry metadata for assets, or on tagging and search across a central asset library. 6 8 9
The Skeptic
Team Libraries hold the brand's components, colours and text styles, a Style guide gathers every colour, font and asset in one place, and design systems carry in-tool documentation. Governance ends there: we found no public information on locked templates for non-designers, tagging or search across assets, or licence, expiry and permitted-use metadata on any asset. 6 8 9
Files, formats & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the work can leave: open or documented file formats, export that keeps layers, vectors and components, offline or self-hosted options, and what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract.
0 — Files exist only in the vendor's cloud in a proprietary format, export is a flat image, and nothing is said about files after cancellation.
3 — Export to PNG, PDF and SVG per frame, but no export of whole files with structure, and files after a downgrade or cancellation addressed only in general terms.
5 — Whole files exportable to a local or documented format, vector and layered export (SVG, PDF) with text kept as text, bulk export of a team's files, and a stated period during which files remain accessible after cancellation.
8 — An open or publicly documented file format, export and import with other tools documented, an API that reads full file structure, files of removed users transferred to the organisation by policy, and a stated deletion timeline after the contract ends.
10 — Portability is built in: an open-source or openly specified format, self-hosting or a local-first option, round-trip export without loss of components and prototypes, and the customer's ownership of all files and their export rights written into the terms.
The Product Designer
The terms put subscribers' ownership of their data in writing, state that data may be removed permanently 30 days after termination with immediate deletion on request, and a machine-readable copy is available by email; Sketch files import and stay fully editable, and React code exports with dependencies. We found no public information on exporting whole files in a documented or layered format with text kept as text, an API that reads file structure, or a policy transferring files of removed users to the organisation. 1 3 4 9
The Frontend Engineer
Sketch imports stay fully editable, code and specs export as React and CSS, a machine-readable copy of your data is available on request by email, the terms say data may be removed permanently 30 days after termination, and the subscriber owns the data. What I actually want is missing from the captured pages: we found no public information on a documented whole-file format, layered SVG or PDF export with text kept as text, bulk export, or an API that reads full file structure. 1 3 4 7 9
The Brand Marketer
The terms state subscriber data might be removed permanently 30 days after cancellation, and subscribers may save and download their designs; React code export with dependencies, downloadable specs, Sketch import and a machine-readable copy of data on request give some exits. We found no public information on whole-file export that keeps layers, components and prototypes, on SVG or PDF export with text kept as text, on a documented file format or API, or on what happens to files of removed users beyond the seat rules. 1 3 4 7 9
The Agency Owner
The terms state the subscriber owns their data, keep it for 30 days after termination before permanent removal, and hold automatic backups for up to twelve months — a concrete answer to the after-cancellation question my clients always ask. React code and full specs export out of every design, but we found no public information on exporting whole files with structure into a documented format, layered vector export or bulk export of a team's work; Sketch import is documented while export back to Sketch is not addressed. 1 4 7 9
The Data Protection Officer
Sketch files can be imported and edited, React code with dependencies exported, and a machine-readable copy of data is provided on request by email, with the terms stating subscriber data may be permanently removed 30 days after termination. We found no public information on exporting whole files with structure in a documented format, on an API that reads file structure, or on the fate of files belonging to removed users. 1 3 4 7 9
The Skeptic
The door swings inward: Sketch files import with every text and shape editable even without Sketch installed, and work leaves as React code with dependencies — but we found no public information on whole-file export in a layered or documented format, the only general route being an email request for a machine-readable copy. To its credit, the terms state the subscriber owns their data and give a concrete thirty-day window before deletion after cancellation. 1 3 4 9
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
Model transparency is real: OpenAI and Claude are named, model access is listed per plan (GPT 5-mini free, GPT 5-mini, 5.1 and Claude Haiku 4.5 on Growth), and AI credits are spelled out as 50, 200/month and 500/month. But we found no public information on whether customer files train models or on any opt-out, admin switching of AI features for the organisation, where AI processing runs, commercial-use rights for generated output, or any indemnity. 1 2 4
The Frontend Engineer
Credit where due: model choices are public — the AI Component Creator uses OpenAI or Claude, GPT 5-mini on the free and core plans, GPT 5.1 and Claude Haiku 4.5 on growth — and monthly AI credits are listed per plan with AI use governed by separate AI terms. But we found no public information on whether customer files train models or any opt-out, commercial-use rights on generated output, where AI processing runs, content labelling, or an IP indemnity. 1 2 4
The Brand Marketer
Models and providers are named per plan (GPT 5-mini, 5.1 and Claude Haiku 4.5, with credits of 50, 200 and 500 per month and custom for Enterprise) and the AI Component Creator works with OpenAI or Claude, which is transparency I respect. But before a generated image goes on a trade-fair stand I need answers on commercial use, indemnity and stock licences, and we found no public information on training of customer files, admin on/off controls, processing location, output labelling or licence terms per asset type; the terms say only that AI features rely on third-party providers and are governed by separate AI terms. 1 2 4
The Agency Owner
Model names are public — GPT 5-mini and Claude Haiku with credits of 50, 200 and 500 a month depending on plan — and AI features sit under dedicated AI terms with third-party providers. We found no public information on whether customer files train those models, an admin switch to turn AI features off for the organisation, commercial-use rights for generated output, or any indemnity. 1 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
AI models are named by plan — GPT 5-mini and Claude Haiku 4.5 through OpenAI or Claude — with credit allotments published per tier, which is real disclosure. But we found no public information on whether customer files are used to train these models, on any organisation-wide opt-out or admin control, on where AI processing runs, or on commercial rights, stock licences and indemnity for generated output. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
The pricing page names its models — GPT 5-mini, 5.1, Claude Haiku 4.5 — rationed by plan alongside credit allowances, and the homepage names OpenAI and Claude for the AI Component Creator. Naming models is merchandising, not governance: we found no public information on training on customer files, an opt-out, where AI processing runs, output labelling, stock licences or an indemnity, and the terms only point to a separate AI-terms document. 1 2 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where design files, brand assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where files are hosted, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU data residency available only on an enterprise plan or not at all, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI features send files outside the EU without an explained safeguard.
5 — EU hosting stated for files, a DPA available, but the contracting entity or significant parts of the chain (AI, rendering, support) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity, files, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.
The Product Designer
The contracting entity is UXPin Inc., a Delaware corporation, with the Polish subsidiary serving only subscribers from before November 2016; we found no public information on where files, brand assets and AI prompts are hosted, on a subprocessor list, or on a DPA. The privacy policy's restriction of personal-data transfers to US Data Privacy Framework-listed or GDPR-covered entities is the only safeguard in the captured pages. 3 4
The Frontend Engineer
The privacy policy restricts transfers of personal data to US Data Privacy Framework-listed or GDPR-covered entities and support hours span Pacific and Central European time, which are the only signals I can find. Every sovereignty attribute is unconfirmed on the captured pages: we found no public information on where files, assets and AI prompts are stored or processed, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or any subprocessor list with locations. 3 4
The Brand Marketer
The contracting entity is UXPin Inc., a Delaware corporation, with a Polish subsidiary serving subscribers from before November 2016, and we found no public information on where design files and AI prompts are hosted, on a subprocessor list, or on a data processing agreement. The privacy policy restricts transfers to United States Data Privacy Framework-listed or EU/GDPR-adequate entities, which earns slight credit, but we found no public information establishing EU residency for files or AI processing. 3 4
The Agency Owner
The contracting entity is a Delaware corporation whose Polish subsidiary serves only subscribers from before November 2016, and we found no public information on where design files, brand assets and AI prompts are stored or which subprocessors touch them. The privacy policy's commitment to transfer personal data only to US Data Privacy Framework-listed or GDPR-adequate entities is the only safeguard statement in the captured pages. 1 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is a Delaware corporation per the terms, operations are framed in Pacific time, and we found no public information on where design files, backups and AI prompts are stored or processed, nor on any subprocessor list. The single safeguard visible is a privacy policy restricting transfers of personal data to US Data Privacy Framework-listed or GDPR-covered entities. 3 4
The Skeptic
Every question a European buyer asks here goes unanswered on the captured pages: we found no public information on where files, assets or AI prompts are hosted or processed, and no subprocessor list, while support hours and planned maintenance run on Pacific time. The single safeguard published is a privacy-policy rule that personal data goes only to US Data Privacy Framework-listed or GDPR-bound entities — a framework promise rather than a location. 3 4
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 pricing page maps features, AI credits and model access cleanly across the plans and names Growth as where SSO, 2FA and roles and permissions begin. But we found no public information on per-seat prices for any plan, how viewers, guests or added seats are billed, or true-up rules, so a buyer cannot compute an annual team cost from these pages. 2 4
The Frontend Engineer
The tier table is unusually honest about scope — SSO and roles arrive on the growth plan, Git integration only on enterprise, and AI credits run from 50 on the free plan to 500/month on growth with enterprise custom — so I know exactly which plan unlocks admin controls. But the captured pages show no per-seat price figure for any paid plan, no seat-type distinctions, no viewer or guest billing rules, and enterprise pricing is a conversation. 2 8 9
The Brand Marketer
The pricing page lays out structure honestly: a free tier, AI credits per plan (50, 200 and 500 per month, custom for Enterprise), SSO and 2FA starting at the Growth plan, unlimited version history at Enterprise, and guest feedback without a seat. But I cannot compute an annual cost for twelve offices, because we found no public information on the per-seat prices themselves, on how added seats are trued up, or on renewal and downgrade conditions; the captured pages also give different plan names, with the pricing page listing Free, Core, Growth and Enterprise while the design-systems pages mention Merge, Forge and Wire. 2 6 7
The Agency Owner
The plan ladder is public about what each rung buys — SSO and roles arrive on Growth, Git on Enterprise, AI credits of 50, 200 and 500 a month by plan — and reviewers leave feedback on shared links without an account. But we found no public information on seat prices, viewer or guest billing, or how added seats are billed, and the Enterprise tier is custom, so an annual cost for my team cannot be computed from public pages. 2 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Plan tiers are published with their features, AI credit allotments per tier, and the Growth plan named as where SSO, roles and permissions begin. We found no public information on any per-seat price for a paid plan, on how guests, reviewers and added seats are billed, and enterprise AI credits are listed only as custom. 2 8 9
The Skeptic
The plan ladder is published in detail — free, Core, Growth, Enterprise with their coded libraries, AI credit allowances of 50, 200/month and 500/month, and SSO named as starting at Growth — but we found no public information on what any plan costs per seat, and Enterprise pricing is custom. Guest feedback is free without an account; we found no public information on billing for viewers or on how and when added seats are trued up. 2 9
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about UXPin
Is UXPin European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies UXPin as Rest of world.
Where does UXPin store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does UXPin have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to UXPin?
As of 16 Oct 2026, the panel rates Penpot (2.5/5), Sketch (2.5/5) and Frontify (2.5/5) highest among the other 13 Design products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Penpot (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: UXPin alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 12 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
- 5 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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 hosting 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 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap www.uxpin.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →