Compare Proto.io and UXPin 
- Users report that UXPin excels in Ease of Setup with a score of 9.2, making it a preferred choice for teams looking to get started quickly, while Proto.io's score of 8.2 indicates a more complex setup process.
- Reviewers mention that UXPin's Collaboration Capabilities are robust, highlighted by a score of 9.0 for Sharing Components, which allows teams to work seamlessly together, whereas Proto.io's collaboration features are perceived as less integrated, leading to a score of 7.8 in Quality of Support.
- G2 users highlight UXPin's superior User Interface Testing capabilities, scoring 9.0, which reviewers say provides comprehensive tools for testing designs, while Proto.io's offerings in this area are seen as less effective, contributing to a lower overall user satisfaction.
- Users on G2 report that UXPin's Presentation Integrations score of 9.2 is a standout feature, allowing for easy sharing and presentation of prototypes, while Proto.io's integration options are noted as limited, affecting the overall user experience.
- Reviewers mention that UXPin's Feedback and Communication tools, scoring 8.9, facilitate better collaboration and iteration on designs, whereas Proto.io's tools in this area are considered less intuitive, leading to a score of 7.7 in Ease of Admin.
- Users say that UXPin's Modeling Tools score of 8.7 is particularly beneficial for creating detailed prototypes, while Proto.io's modeling capabilities are viewed as basic, which may not meet the needs of more advanced users.
- 1 user
- 5 active projects
- Unlimited reviewers
- 2 active prototypes
- Interactions & animations
- States
The ability to prototype detailed interactions is very advanced. Their library of existing controls is very helpful when putting the pieces together in a prototype. The ability to export the final prototype into html, css and js is very helpful and works...
The depth of interactions is not close to the competition. Not easy to use for usability testing.
- HTML based design with states and CSS interactions. This is the future of design. No longer do you need to create 5 different art boards to describe one interaction. Just create a component with multiple states. It's easy. It's awesome. - The way your...
In practice, UXPin doesn't simplify a process, just offers a different route. If you want to utilize the bootstrap (or any other framework) you have to be intimately knowledgeable about said framework. The work flow didn't speed anything up for me, and I...
The ability to prototype detailed interactions is very advanced. Their library of existing controls is very helpful when putting the pieces together in a prototype. The ability to export the final prototype into html, css and js is very helpful and works...
- HTML based design with states and CSS interactions. This is the future of design. No longer do you need to create 5 different art boards to describe one interaction. Just create a component with multiple states. It's easy. It's awesome. - The way your...
The depth of interactions is not close to the competition. Not easy to use for usability testing.
In practice, UXPin doesn't simplify a process, just offers a different route. If you want to utilize the bootstrap (or any other framework) you have to be intimately knowledgeable about said framework. The work flow didn't speed anything up for me, and I...
