The practical differences
| What matters | FigCraft | Figma |
|---|---|---|
| Source code | MIT or Apache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| Cost model | Free upstream software | Free and paid plans |
| Primary workflow | Native local documents; browser canvas preview | Hosted design workspace, browser or desktop |
| Layout and prototypes | Frames, auto layout, components and prototype tools | Established design and prototyping workflow |
| Collaboration | Upstream preview; server setup required | Hosted team collaboration |
| Figma file import | Desktop import is best effort; web file dialogs are not connected | Native workflow |
Try a self-contained design first
Build a small screen with a frame, text, shapes and an auto-layout group. Reuse a component and connect a simple prototype. The pinned web release has no native file dialogs; use the desktop app to save and reopen a project. This does not establish that a large existing design system transfers unchanged.
Treat team migration as a separate project
FigCraft documents a preview of live sessions, but this site does not operate a collaboration backend. Existing Figma libraries, plugins and .fig files need individual compatibility checks. Source availability alone does not replace a team's operational requirements.
Which should you choose?
Try FigCraft's browser canvas preview to explore interface design. Use its desktop app for project-file workflows: native file dialogs are not connected in this web release. Choose Figma when your team needs its managed collaboration, libraries and ecosystem.
Explore the FigCraft guide and try a small file online before deciding.
Sources and scope
Checked 2026-10-16 against the following primary sources. Plan details and product features can change; check the linked provider page before making a purchase. These are feature and workflow comparisons, not a benchmark or a claim of feature parity.