html.to.design vs Anima vs Export to Figma (2026)

If you've searched "how to get a website into Figma," you've probably found four names: html.to.design, Anima, Locofy, and Export to Figma. They all show up in the same search results. They all kind of do similar things. They're also actually solving different problems, which makes picking one frustrating if no one's been honest with you about the differences.

This article is that honest comparison. Yes, I built Export to Figma, so this is biased — but I've tried to point out where each tool genuinely wins.

First, the 4 categories of tools

The category split matters more than the feature list. These tools are not direct competitors; they sit in four different lanes:

Category	What it does	Examples
Chrome extension	Captures live websites in your browser, paste into Figma as layers	Export to Figma
Figma plugin (import)	Takes pasted HTML or a URL, renders inside Figma	html.to.design
Design-to-code	Converts Figma designs into React/Vue/HTML code	Anima, Locofy
AI site generators	Generates new sites from prompts	v0, Bolt, Lovable (not directly relevant here)

If your end goal is "get an existing site into Figma," you want category 1 or 2. If your end goal is "ship code from a Figma design," you want category 3. Mixing them up is the most common reason people end up frustrated.

html.to.design

The biggest name in the Figma-plugin lane. They've been around since 2022 and have a loyal designer following.

Strengths:

• Solid HTML rendering inside Figma. If you paste clean HTML, the output is reliably good.
• Strong on typography and layout fidelity.
• Active development. They ship features steadily.
• Brand recognition — most designers have heard of it.

Weaknesses:

• Requires either a URL fetch (which fails on JS-heavy sites and on logged-in pages) or you have to paste raw HTML (which most designers don't have).
• Free tier is tight — you'll hit the cap quickly.
• The plugin lives inside Figma, which means the import is a separate, slower mode-switch than just pasting from your clipboard.

Pricing: Free tier with limits; paid plans roughly $8–$15/month depending on cap.

Pick this if: you have raw HTML files (a design system reference, a static export from another tool, etc.) and want them inside Figma without fighting the browser layer.

Anima

Anima is in a different lane. Their primary product is Figma → code: turn a Figma design into working React or HTML. They have a "design from website" feature that overlaps with the web-to-Figma category, but it's not their main pitch.

Strengths:

• Best-in-class Figma-to-code generation. If your goal is shipping production code from designs, Anima is the most mature option.
• Component-aware exports — generates real React components, not flat markup.
• Strong design-system support.

Weaknesses:

• For web → Figma specifically, it's a side feature. Don't pick Anima if your main job is "get this website into Figma so I can redesign it."
• Pricing is meaningfully higher than the other tools because you're paying for the code-export engine.
• The setup is heavier — more team-focused, less drop-in.

Pricing: Free tier; paid starts around $39/month.

Pick this if: your end deliverable is code, not a Figma file. Don't pick this if you just want a website in Figma.

Locofy

Locofy plays in the same lane as Anima — Figma-to-code, primarily React Native and React. Strong AI-powered code generation. Like Anima, the web-to-Figma direction isn't really what they're for.

Strengths:

• Excellent for converting Figma designs into mobile (React Native) code.
• Generous free tier for the design-to-code direction.
• Good documentation.

Weaknesses:

• Not really a web-to-Figma tool. If that's what you came for, skip it.
• The product is opinionated about how you should design in Figma — if you don't follow their conventions, output quality drops.

Pricing: Free tier; paid plans for production use.

Pick this if: you need to ship a React Native app from Figma designs.

Export to Figma

Full disclosure: I built this. Here's the honest pitch.

Strengths:

• Captures live websites directly from Chrome — including JS-heavy sites, logged-in pages, and dynamic content.
• One-click flow: click extension, click Export, paste in Figma. No URL fetching, no HTML pasting, no Figma-plugin context switch.
• Editable layers in Figma — real text nodes, real image fills, real auto-layout containers.
• Free tier (10 exports/month) and flat $9/month Pro for unlimited.
• Multi-viewport: capture the same page at desktop and mobile widths for responsive design work.

Weaknesses:

• Chrome-only (no Safari or Firefox extension yet).
• We don't do code export. If you need React from your Figma design, you'll pair this with Anima or write the code by hand.
• Animations, videos, and complex SVG gradients are the rough edges. Honest about it.
• Newer than html.to.design — less name recognition (working on it).

Pricing: Free 10/month; Pro $9/month flat for unlimited.

Pick this if: your goal is "get this website into Figma so I can redesign, audit, or recreate it," and you want the fastest path from "Chrome tab" to "editable Figma frame."

Side-by-side feature comparison

Feature	html.to.design	Anima	Locofy	Export to Figma
Web → Figma	✅ (via URL/HTML paste)	⚠️ Side feature	❌	✅ (Chrome extension)
Figma → Code	❌	✅	✅	❌
Captures live JS sites	⚠️ Limited	⚠️ Limited	❌	✅
Logged-in pages	❌	❌	❌	✅
Output is editable in Figma	✅	✅	✅	✅
Free tier	✅ (capped)	✅ (capped)	✅	✅ (10/mo)
Paid starting price	~$8/mo	~$39/mo	Varies	$9/mo flat
Speed (URL → Figma)	1–3 min	Variable	N/A	~30 sec

Which one should you pick?

By persona:

If you're a designer who redesigns existing websites. Use Export to Figma. It's built for exactly that loop. (Read the redesign workflow guide for the full process.)

If you have raw HTML files to bring into Figma. Use html.to.design. It's the most mature in that lane.

If your output is production code, not a Figma file. Use Anima (or Locofy for React Native). These are different tools solving a different problem.

If you're auditing competitors or building an inspiration library. Use Export to Figma. The Chrome-native capture is the fastest way to fill a swipe file with editable layers.

If you're capturing AI-generated sites (v0, Bolt, Lovable) to refine. Use Export to Figma. The output of those tools is a live URL, which is exactly what a Chrome extension handles best.

Try the one you think fits

Or read the deeper guides:

• How to Import Any Website Into Figma — the full capture walkthrough.
• How to Copy a Website to Figma for a Redesign — the workflow after the import.

Honest take: the tool you should pick is the one whose direction matches your work. Web-to-Figma and Figma-to-code are different jobs. Pick by direction first, then by features.