Figma Sites vs Figment: Which Should Publish Your Design?

Fair warning before anything else: we make Figment, and Figment is a Figma plugin. Figma shipping Figma Sites means our platform shipped a competitor to us. So read this knowing exactly who's writing it.

I'm going to try to be genuinely useful anyway, because the alternative is writing something you'd see through in a paragraph.

What they have in common

Both let you build a website in Figma and publish it without touching code. Both keep you in one tool instead of handing a design to a developer or rebuilding it in Webflow. If that's the whole job, either one does it.

What each Figma plan actually lets you publish

"Figma Sites is free" is a claim you'll see repeated, and it's not quite right. Here's what Figma's own pricing page and pricing FAQ say:

Two things worth flagging, both from that same FAQ page: during the Sites beta, custom domains, bandwidth and storage were offered free "through 2025," with paid bandwidth/storage add-ons arriving "in early 2026" — so if you're reading this well after publish, check the FAQ directly, since that's exactly the kind of term Figma is likely to have updated. And "no limits on published websites" is stated outright, so the constraint isn't how many Sites you can ship, it's the seat you need to ship any of them.

So the real comparison isn't "Figma vs Figment," it's "a free Figma account vs Figment." If you're already paying for a Professional Full seat or above, Sites is very likely the pragmatic default — you're not paying twice. If you're on Figma's free Starter plan and want something live today rather than waiting on the "coming soon" Starter experience, that's the gap this whole page is really about — see the full plan-by-plan breakdown if that's your situation.

Once you're live on either platform and want your own domain instead of a shared subdomain, the records you add are different for each — here's the DNS checklist for both.

Where Figma Sites is the better answer

Let me get this out of the way, because it's most of the cases.

You're already paying for Figma. Figma Sites comes with a Full seat on a paid plan, starting around $16/month at the time of writing. If you already have that seat for design work, publishing costs you nothing extra. Figment is a separate subscription.

You want a CMS. Figma Sites has one. It went into public beta in November 2025, with collections, dynamic pages and repeating lists. Figment has no CMS at all. If your site has a blog or a product catalog, this isn't close.

You want interactions and animation. Sites inherits Figma's prototyping model and added Code Layers in August 2025 for custom interactive elements. Figment publishes what you designed, and that's the extent of it.

You want the thing that's obviously going to keep getting built. Figma has a large team pointed at this. We're small. That's not false modesty, it's a real factor in a five-year decision.

Where Figment fits

Price at the low end. Figment's free tier publishes to a subdomain with our badge on it. If you design on a free Figma account and just want something live, that's the gap we sit in.

You want the published output to stand alone. Figment publishes a static bundle sitting in storage, served independently. Nothing in your live site phones home to a design tool. Some people care about that and some really don't.

Age, for whatever it's worth. Figment has been publishing sites since 2021, and there are about 20,000 published sites on it — we sampled 3,000 of them and wrote up what's actually in them. Figma Sites is newer and still carries beta rough edges that people write forum posts about. Older isn't better by default. It does mean the failure modes are known.

The part where I'll criticize my own product

If SEO matters to you, look closely at both, including ours.

Figma Sites has documented gaps here. Reviewers consistently report limited control over head tags, no straightforward 301 redirects, no schema markup, and pages that render as deeply nested generic containers rather than proper heading and section structure.

Figment is worse on this today. Sites we publish paint their content with JavaScript, so the HTML a crawler receives first is essentially an empty page, with your text sitting in a data blob rather than in headings and paragraphs. Google runs JavaScript and does index these sites, but it's a handicap and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. We're fixing it. It isn't fixed yet.

So if your website's entire job is ranking in Google, neither of these is what I'd reach for right now. Use something that emits real server-rendered HTML, and come back to us when we've shipped the fix. That advice costs us signups and it's still the right advice.

How I'd actually decide

Paying for Figma already, and want a CMS or animation? Figma Sites. It's the default for a reason and the integration is deeper than anything a plugin can do.

Want a design online for free, or want the output to be a standalone bundle you can point a domain at? Try Figment. Publishing takes about a minute, so the evaluation is cheap.

Building something where search traffic is the point? Be skeptical of both of us for now.

Is Figma Make the same thing as Figma Sites?

No, and it's worth being precise here, because Figma's own naming makes it easy to conflate the two. Per Figma's help center, Figma Make is "an AI-driven, prompt-to-app tool that lets you bring ideas and existing Figma designs to life as functional prototypes, web apps, and interactive UI" — you describe what you want and refine it through conversation, and, depending on your seat, you can export the resulting code (Figma Help, "Figma Make FAQs"). Figma Sites is the different product actually discussed in the rest of this post: it "lets you design, prototype, and publish high-quality websites — all in one place," built from responsive components, frames, and auto layout you create or copy in from Figma Design (Figma Help, "Explore Figma Sites").

They do overlap in one concrete way: "Figma Make is included on the Full seat," the same seat tier Figma Sites needs, and "each plan has a custom domain limit, which is shared between Figma Make and Figma Sites" (Figma Make FAQs, same source). But the jobs are different. Figma Make is closer to Bolt or v0 — a prompt-to-app generator with code export, for building an interactive tool or prototype from an idea or a design. Figma Sites is closer to Figment — publish a website built from a design you already have. If you came here comparing Figment against "Figma's AI," the product actually competing with us is Figma Sites, not Figma Make.

About the AI part

We built an AI website builder on top of the Figma publishing engine, and it's public now — you can try it today. The bet behind it is that AI edits are only as good as the canvas underneath, and a design file you own is a better canvas than a closed template system. Figma is making a version of that bet too, from a considerably stronger position.

If you want to see where we've got to, ask for a demo and I'll show you honestly, including the parts that aren't done.