# Claude Design vs. Google Stitch vs. Figma: How We Choose > Claude Design, Google Stitch, and Figma are three different bets on AI-era product design: prompt-first and code-native, free and fast, or the collaborative canvas. Here is how a studio actually chooses between them. *7 min read · Published 2026-07-04 · [Muhammad Idrees](https://adrees.dev/about)* By mid-2026 there is no single AI design tool; there are three bets. Claude Design is prompt-first and hands off to code. Google Stitch is free and fast. Figma is the collaborative canvas everyone already shares. They are not the same tool with different logos, and choosing well is less about a feature grid than about where you are in the work. ## Key takeaways - Claude Design, Google Stitch, and Figma encode three different bets: Claude Design is prompt-first and code-native with a design system read from your codebase; Google Stitch is free, fast text and image to UI; Figma is the collaborative canvas with design systems and handoff at scale. - Google Stitch wins the very start: free, no friction, a real screen in minutes, and it pastes into Figma or exports code, at the cost of generic output that needs a pass. - Claude Design wins the path from an on-brand prototype into code, because it reads your codebase for the design system and hands straight to Claude Code, but its sharing is org-scoped, not a multiplayer canvas. - Figma remains the shared source of truth for a design team: real-time collaboration, component libraries, and developer handoff, now with its own AI (Figma Make, Dev Mode). Most studios use all three at different stages, not one instead of the others. ## Three bets, not one tool By mid-2026 the AI design conversation has split three ways, and the split is philosophical before it is technical. Claude Design bets on prompt-first and code-native: describe it, refine in conversation, hand to Claude Code. Google Stitch bets on free and fast: the lowest-friction way to turn a sentence into a screen. Figma bets on the canvas: the shared, collaborative source of truth a design team already lives in, now with AI threaded through it. None of them is the same tool with a different logo, and that is the point. The useful question is not which is best, but which fits the stage of work you are in. ## How they differ, honestly Input and feel: Stitch and Claude Design are prompt-first, where you describe and steer; Figma is canvas-first, where you draw and arrange. Claude Design and Figma can both carry a design system (Claude reads your codebase and design files; Figma holds component libraries and tokens); Stitch mostly starts fresh each time. Output and handoff: all three can reach code, but by different routes. Stitch copies front-end code or pastes to Figma. Claude Design hands to Claude Code as real front end. Figma hands off through Dev Mode and its AI, Figma Make, generating from the canvas. Collaboration is where they separate most: Figma is real-time multiplayer with comments and versioning; Claude Design is org-scoped sharing and group edits; Stitch is essentially single-user. ## What each is genuinely best at Stitch is best at the cold start: exploring directions for free, getting a stakeholder a real screen fast, generating a scaffold a coding agent can build on. Its weakness is that the output leans generic and needs a designer's pass for brand and accessibility. Claude Design is best at the run from idea to on-brand prototype to code, when the design system already lives in your repo and the next stop is Claude Code. Figma is best at everything that needs a team: a maintained design system, multiple designers on one canvas, and a structured handoff that scales past one person. Its AI, Make and Dev Mode, accelerates that without giving up the canvas. ## How we choose The decision follows the stage, not the leaderboard. At zero to one, exploring and pitching, we reach for Google Stitch or Claude Design: fast, cheap, low friction. From one to ten, refining toward production with more than one person involved, Figma earns its place as the shared canvas and system. For handoff, we go from Claude Design straight into Claude Code, or from Figma through Dev Mode, depending on where the design was built. Underneath that sit four real questions: how much the output needs to be on-brand out of the gate, whether more than one person needs to work on the same canvas, whether the design system already lives in code, and how the design becomes a build. Answer those and the tool usually picks itself. ## The honest bottom line This is not a winner-take-all race, and treating it like one leads to the wrong tool at the wrong stage. The pattern we actually run is a pipeline: explore fast (Stitch or Claude Design), refine on a shared canvas when a team is involved (Figma), and ship into code (Claude Code from Claude Design, or Dev Mode from Figma). Each has a clear job. If you want the longer story on the two AI-native tools before you decide, we cover them in their own posts, "What Is Claude Design? Anthropic's AI Design Tool, Explained" and "What Is Google Stitch? Google's AI UI Design Tool, Explained," and this head-to-head is where the threads meet. ## FAQ **Can Claude Design replace Figma?** Not for a design team. Claude Design is prompt-first and code-native: it is strong at turning an idea into an on-brand prototype and handing it to Claude Code. Figma is a real-time multiplayer canvas built around shared design systems, component libraries, and developer handoff at scale. Claude Design can replace the early prototyping step for solo and small-team work; Figma remains the shared source of truth for production design. Many teams use both. **Is Google Stitch better than Figma?** They are built for different stages. Google Stitch is faster and free for turning a prompt into a first screen; Figma is unmatched for collaboration, design systems, and production handoff. Stitch can displace Figma for quick solo exploration, but it does not replace Figma's canvas, collaboration, or governance. Most teams use Stitch to explore and Figma to finish. **Which AI design tool produces the best code?** Claude Design is the most code-native of the three, because it reads your codebase for a design system and hands directly to Claude Code. Google Stitch outputs clean HTML and Tailwind CSS but in a narrower scope. Figma generates code from the canvas through Dev Mode and Figma Make. None produce finished production code on the first pass; all still need developer review, accessibility work, and polish. **Does Figma have AI?** Yes. Figma has added AI across the product, including Figma Make for generating prototypes and code from a prompt and AI in Dev Mode for design-to-code handoff, alongside generative editing tools. Figma's bet is to bring AI into the collaborative canvas rather than replace it, which is why it stays the shared source of truth even as prompt-first tools grow. ## Sources - [Anthropic — Claude Design](https://claude.com/product/design) - [Google Labs — Stitch](https://stitch.withgoogle.com/) - [Figma — Dev Mode](https://www.figma.com/dev-mode/) --- Canonical page: https://www.sentientarc.com/blog/claude-design-vs-google-stitch-vs-figma