Figma, headquartered in San Francisco, offers their collaborative design and prototyping application to support digital product and UI development.
$144
per year
Optimal
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Optimal Workshop, a company in New Zealand, offers their suite of user research tools on a subscription basis, including the Treejack information architecture tool, OptimalSort card sorting test, Chalkmark first-click testing, and other tools.
$2,388
per year
Pricing
Figma
Optimal
Editions & Modules
Professional
$144
per year
Organization
$540
per year
Starter
Free
Starter
$2388
per year
Enterprise
Custom
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Figma
Optimal
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Figma
Optimal
Considered Both Products
Figma
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Figma
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.
For the price as it is very convenient for first-time beginners, its intuitiveness both for the one who is designing the activities and for those who have to interact with them. The fact that it collects and gathers the data into insights of the overall responses collected by …
Optimal seems a little more friendly in terms of setting up tests. We do use UserTesting as well, but it felt like that experience has more in-depth workflows to blast a test. Optimal Workshop feels like it is easy to quickly set up one test and then launch it immediately.
Optimal Workshop was the best tool that provided just what we needed and not anything more. The price point was also perfect for us as it provided room to try it out and then jump into a bigger package.
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.
The tools are great for user researchers who have a solid foundation with IA research methods, or are willing to learn them while using the tools. However they don't magically create valid IA studies; someone with no IA research experience may struggle to use the tools and/or run studies resulting in poor quality data.
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.
The recruitment panelists are not professional, nor do they take the tasks seriously. You are going to get a lot of bad data.
They are HQ'd outside the US and must have a small team because the customer service is the absolute WORST I've experienced in their industry.
They pride themselves on documentation, but when they fail to document something they blame the customer for the mistake.
There are way too many limitations with the tool after you launch, limited integrations, and poor survey questionnaire options. The tool itself is far too basic for most sites, especially B2B.
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.
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 would rate Optimal Workshop's overall usability 9 out of 10 due to several key factors. Firstly, the platform has a user-friendly interface makes navigation straightforward, even for first-time users. The tools and features are well-organized, ensuring users can quickly find what they need without unnecessary complexity. Secondly, the platform is highly intuitive, meaning users can easily understand how to perform tasks without extensive guidance. This is supported by clear and concise instructions throughout the application, reducing the learning curve significantly.
Additionally, the learnability of Optimal Workshop is exceptional. New users can become proficient in a short amount of time, thanks to its well-thought-out design and helpful onboarding materials. Even more advanced features are presented in a way that feels approachable and manageable. Finally, the platform supports a seamless workflow, allowing users to focus on their research or tasks rather than struggling with the software. These qualities collectively make Optimal Workshop a reliable and efficient tool for many projects, justifying its high usability rating.
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.
We’ve never had to use much of their support services since the platform is very easy to use, we have however needed to transfer ownership between team members due to people leaving or other circumstances. Under those situations, the support offered to us has been been very quick and efficient and we never had to nudge them much to get the job done.
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.
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.
Optimal Workshop was the best tool that provided just what we needed and not anything more. The price point was also perfect for us as it provided room to try it out and then jump into a bigger package
Optimal Workshop has provided a very low-risk, quick testing ground for navigation menus. So while the full impact cannot be determined, we are happy we are using Optimal Workshop, and are gaining benefits from it.