Balsamiq is a wireframing tool that helps lean product teams turn early ideas into clear, actionable direction. The tool helps product managers, founders, and engineers worldwide share concepts, reduce rework, and build better products.
N/A
Figma
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Figma, headquartered in San Francisco, offers their collaborative design and prototyping application to support digital product and UI development.
Balsamiq is lagging a lot as compared to Figma but it's comparable with respect to Mockflow.
Also, Figma is a full stack solution in designing and hence it was an overkill of my role. Balsamiq is easier to use & know in the industry and hence that helped in decision making.
I use Balsamic for ideation, discussion, collaboration and proposals. It is super fast and easy to just drag UI components onto the canvas and move things around or delete things as you need. Its alignment tools are basic and good enough to get the job done. I would use Figma …
In the past I have just used HTML to mock up UIs, but as I've previously mentioned this can cause problems with user's thinking that the system is already built. Balsamiq is far quicker and easier to create wireframes, it is more collaborative and the resulting wireframes …
We think Balsamiq does a good job compared to Visio and we do go to Balsamiq first. We typically know after trying to put together the first wireframe if it will work well in Balsamiq. And we are familiar enough with both tools to get an idea. If it is not working right away in …
While I love these other tools for many different reasons, Balsamiq is the tool I use for low-fidelity wireframing every time. It’s the most simple and easy-to-use out of the bunch, and it gets the job done without a ton of effort and time required. In the early stages of …
OmniGraffle can get you to the same place as Balsamiq will, but it will take you longer. Balsamiq has more built-in elements that help you create mockups very quickly. With OmniGraffle, though, you'll be spending more time creating elements by hand. And because OmniGraffle is …
Invision integrates well with Photoshop but Balsamiq has a much more intuitive pick-up-and-play quality that makes it a useful entry tool to marketing teams just getting their feet wet in the design process. The standardized layout and methodology also gives it an edge if you …
Creating digital wireframes in Photoshop is a nightmare. Photoshop was not really designed for this purpose. It doesn't have good collaboration options and it doesn't allow pattern libraries, which are essential for consistency and efficiency. We use UXPin and Axure for some …
We select Balsamiq for product cost and quality. It is intuitive, so it does not require much support or courses to start using it. It does not take up much space on the server, it is very light. It can be used in several operating systems. You can load the Bootstrap library …
We have used some other alternatives and Balsamiq is the best one for fastest results. InVision and Justinmind both work very well and have great tools for collaboration and making interactive mockups. With Justinmind, I have done some app mockups that felt almost functional …
Balsamiq is the only wireframing software I've used. The only other thing that I've used for any wireframing is Microsoft Powerpoint, which does actually increase some customization options, but takes much longer to make a quality wireframe.
I've also used Adobe Illustrator …
Balsamiq is selected for cost and product quality. It is inductive, so it does not require much support or courses to start using it, it does not take up much space on the server, it is very light. It can be used in several operating systems. You can load the Bootstrap library, …
Balsamiq is a quite simple tool; but does exactly what was designed for, it helps with creating mockups, wireframes, and flows. Its simplicity works great for people who are not designers but need to visually represent their ideas. Low-fidelity wireframes work really well in …
I just searched free trials and did a test run of Balsamiq for 30 days at no cost. I didn't even look at another product - this one met the immediate need to get a bunch of drawings done and out the door. At the end of the 30 days my manager didn't care, either, just wanted a …
The Pen tool in Paper is definitely a happy middle between Balsamiq and actual paper prototyping. It has the advantage of being able to copy/paste a section that has already been designed - but even there selecting a specific section is hard - balsamiq's sections are more …
We also have Adobe Illustrator. Balsamiq is a great choice when you value speed and want to use the pre-built icons to put together an interface. It is also a slimmed down feature set versus Illustrator and gives you just the essentials. Balsamiq is easier for non-graphic …
Axure vs Balsamiq. I would pick Axure over Balsamiq. The only con is there could be a learning curve to Axure. Sketch gives more interactivity over Balsamiq but is limited to Mac users. UXPin has easier palettes to move around than Balsamiq but Balsamiq is easier to use than …
I think the learning curve for all of the other tools is much greater than that of Balsamiq. PhotoShop, I think, is a poor tool for UX, but is often used by members of my team for its overall prevalence in their past education (many graphics folks). I have found that …
Balsamiq is very simple and easy, select and drag program for wireframing and prototyping for websites and software. It's really meant for beginners and people who put more weight into the workflow rather than design as there aren't very many options for making it personalized …
I used Gliffy as a free trial and only for a few projects. From what I remember it was fairly similar to Balsamic, but I don't remember Gliffy having the same selection in their UI library.
I use a combination of both products, I use Balsamiq for quick wireframes to get the over all UI layout hammered out. I then use Photoshop to better design color scheme and exact padding.
Axure is basically a direct copy of Balsamiq for 4x the price. Moqups is painful to use and it's a monthly subscription. Although I have not used Adobe Comp, the learning curve is so high, it cannot even come close to the ease of Balsamiq. And Illustrator and Photoshop for …
Figma was a huge turning point compared to its competitors, especially Adobe XD, a tool designed for the same purpose as Figma. I would say that it and all the other tools I mentioned, including those that do not have the same focus on UX design (Photoshop and Illustrator), …
Adobe XD is an absurd copycat that never got to have even 10% of Figma's features. It's hyper fast because it's native, but that's the only good thing it has.
Axure RP is an excellent prototyping software, with Local Variables and complex interactions. But it's also extremely …
Compared to Adobe XD, the Figma tool is much easier to use, offers more features, and has a much lower cost. Its features are less complex, making it very easy to teach beginners how to use it. The navigable prototype is also easier and more efficient to share in Figma compared …
Figma easily wins against adobe XD. Asset sharing on XD was a pain. Figma makes it really easy by allowing you to export any layer as an asset. XD had no comments making it incredibly hard to communicate with the designer in remote settings. XD's prototyping system was not good …
I learned UX Design using Sketch and my team was using Sketch when I joined. We no longer use Sketch, and therefore I cannot compare its current functionality to Figma, but at the time of our switch, Figma just had more advanced capabilities- better collaboration, auto-layout …
Miro is more user-friendly than Figma, but is less robust in terms of web prototyping and graphic design. While Figma isn't made to be used as a design tool, our team has taken to using it as such because it's richer in functions and personalizations compared to Miro and Figma.
Better auto layouts, components and prototyping capabilities. Variables in Figma are also a fantastic addition to create a robust, and scalable design system. I use these features all the time. Love them!
Figma compared to other tools has user friendly UI which is very easy for all levels of designers. Compared to Adobe XD and Sketch Figma is stable, while in other tools I have faced software crashing in the middle of the work which resulted in loss of data/design. Compared to …
I prefer to use it comparing to Adobe Xd. It surely is more intuitive and still develops itself providing new features (e.g. variables; however, I had to get used to the new interface). Now, if I had to compare it to Axure it'd depend on the project I'm working on. In case of …
Figma is the only tool that was build from the ground up for enterprise level distributed teams. If I were a one man shop or even a small team, I would consider sketch or other cheaper alternatives. For a large enterprise team, the only winner is Figma.
Figma is the go-to design tool that can be pushed to production very easily with developer tools. In my opinion it's the most complete design tool that considers the entire design process including the creation of solid design systems, high-fidelity prototyping, user testing, …
I think Figma is better because it's easier to create more visually appealing work. I would say that Figma is better for people who are used to using this sort of visual design software/platform. Whereas I think Miro is better for first time users, it doesn't offer as many …
Figma is the best for collaborative work. Very easy to learn, so easy that most people dont use it properly (which is good and bad at the same time). Prototyping is where I'd wish it will improve. Axure was awesome.
Figma is way better than Adobe Illustrator because of its ability to seamlessly integrate multiple use cases like mobile design and vector-based shape building. While Adobe Illustrator is great for adding texture and depth to illustration you can still build high-end …
In comparison to Figma, other tools which can accomplish similar tasks (Adobe XD, Sketch, and Adobe Photoshop) feel outdated, clunky, and lacking in functionality.
When switching over to Figma, the experience feels much more elegant, convenient, and cutting-edge in a number of …
Figma is the most efficient tool for teams and sharing with clients. It's also easier to learn than other Adobe products. When sharing designs with clients, Figma looks more professional than Canva.
Balsamiq is excellent for creating low-fidelity wireframes where the designer is trying to communicate a general, loose idea of how the design should look. Because of this, it should be used early in the design stage, when there are still many decisions to be made about how the final design should look like. However, it is less suitable for situations where one wants to communicate a more final-appearing version of a design. There are limited functionalities (which appear intentional, as the Balsamiq website says that the tool "has 'just enough' prototyping capabilities, but not more”). Because of this, it is likely wise to choose a more high-powered tool, such as Axure, to create a fuller design toward the later stages of the design process
Figma is a solid design tool to craft the UX design concepts/solutions for digital products. For printed marketing materials such as brochures, marketing flyers, press releases, etc, other design tools such as Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, or InDesign might make more sense to use for those use case scenarios.
Ease of use: Balsamiq is the easiest wireframing platform I've ever used. You will be able to learn how to work with the drag-and-drop interface in less than a day. Use familiar resizing controls (click and drag) to control elements. Familiar keyboard shortcuts for grouping, duplicating, undoing, and more make the platform incredibility intuitive.
Cartoony: I think Balsamiq's intentionally "cartoony" style is great. Again, this helps clients focus on the "what" on the page without spending too much time worrying about the actual look. We have a content-first approach. We always want to nail down the user-flow first before we delve into graphics.
Symbols: The symbols library did not exist when I first started using Balsamiq 7 years ago, but it's a great addition. Assign design elements to your symbols library within a project for easy re-use throughout multiple pages. This is a great way to maintain consistency in your design and reduce re-work. For example, if you copy-paste a footer on each page of your 10 page design, you will need to go back and update all 10 versions if you make a change. If you use the symbols library, you would only need to update it once.
Presentation: Presentation mode allows you to display a full-screen presentation. This is extremely helpful when walking through mocks with clients.
Linking: You can link elements of pages in a project together. This can help you illustrate functionality.
The project can get a bit laggy around 70-100 pages (on a MacBook Pro). It didn't happen to me but I've seen it in a presentation of a project and it froze in a moment and had to restart the app.
I don't find the design of the components very "pretty". It's totally subjective but still wanted to mention it. I know this is the style they have had since the beginning and it's almost something that identifies Balsamiq, but I think it can be improved.
Tappable overlaid layers - bugs on fixed components, such as an app navigation footer in a prototype
Swapping a component but retaining inputted copy or imagery.
Performance on prototypes to work better in UserZoom - having to delete hidden layers manually, optimize images, and streamline the file, in general, is time-consuming
Folder structures - larger teams need multiple layers of folder structure to help find things.
Branch performance - we need better, more user-friendly solutions to get designs to merge better.
Branch performance - branching with the option to choose which pages you want in the branch without deleting each page you don't need.
Default sharing options need improvement.
Responsive ratios' in prototyping without having to recreate pages.
Better collaboration with Jira to bring in links in the design mode not just dev mode.
Balsamiq is just so simple, intuitive and fast at creating wireframes. It has just the right amount of UI elements to get the job done without weighing you down with decision fatigue. If you really need something that is not there, you can either draw or import your own elements. I also like the way that you can organize your assets for reuse.
Figma is a pretty cool tool in many areas. My team almost uses it on daily basis, such as, brainstorming on product/design topics, discussing prototypes created by designers. We even use it for retrospectives, which is super convenient and naturally keeps records of what the team discusses every month. Furthermore, I do see the potential of the product - currently we mainly use it for design topics, but it seems it is also a good fit for tech diagrams, which we probably will explore further in the future.
Very intuitive and easy to understand. It only takes minutes to get the hang of it and get back to work. For new analysts (like, brand new, fresh out of school) it's not difficult and they need minimal to no hand-holding. The training content that is embedded is easy to find and use.
It's easy to use for designers who are familiar with design terms and functions from Photoshop and Illustrator. However, non-tech and non-designer collaborators have a hard time figuring out how to leave comments and apply changes, compared to other online design tools like Canva and Squarespace. Even simple drag-and-drops and rearrangement of certain blocks become too complicated due to uncommon functions like Hug and Lock.
I haven't used their support lately but in the past, they had a chat that I used often. They often responded in a few hours and were able to give a satisfactory solution. I would imagine it's less personal now but the community has expanded drastically so there are more resources out there to self serve with a bit of Google magic.
In-person training has its own benefits - 1. It helps in resolving queries then and there during the training. 2. I find classroom or in-person training more interactive. 3. Classroom or in-person training could be more practical in nature where participants can have an hands on experience with tools and clarify their doubts with the trainer.
Online training has its own merits and demerits - 1. Sometimes we may face issues with connectivity or the training content 2. The way training is being delivered becomes very important because not everyone is comfortable taking online training and learning by themselves. 3. With the advancement of technology online training has become popular but there is a segment of people who still prefer class-room training over online one.
In the past I have just used HTML to mock up UIs, but as I've previously mentioned this can cause problems with user's thinking that the system is already built. Balsamiq is far quicker and easier to create wireframes, it is more collaborative and the resulting wireframes cannot be confused with a real system as they have a hand drawn feel to them.
I learned UX Design using Sketch and my team was using Sketch when I joined. We no longer use Sketch, and therefore I cannot compare its current functionality to Figma, but at the time of our switch, Figma just had more advanced capabilities- better collaboration, auto-layout tools, prototyping, etc. From what I can tell, it remains best in class for UX Design tools.
The product works very well for showing product owners and developers design ideas for purposes of discussion, debate and refinement.
The products also works very well for specifying new designs for developers. This is best done in a series of screens that show various screen states and user interactions.
I also use the products to document bugs in software products and websites we have developed. This includes outlining and documenting bugs and changes to user interactions and refinements to the usability of completed interfaces and user experiences.
