TrustRadius Insights for UXPin are summaries of user sentiment data from TrustRadius reviews and, when necessary, third party data sources.
Pros
Documentation and Context: Users have found the ability to add documentation to projects helpful for further defining functionality and flow. This feature enhances the overall understanding of project requirements for multiple reviewers.
Visual Design Capabilities: Reviewers appreciate the option to add images and other files to projects, allowing for visually appealing blueprints that can be easily shared with clients. This feature enables users to create engaging prototypes that help clients visualize the final product.
Collaboration and Communication: Users love the convenience of sharing project previews with clients, making it easy for them to understand the functionality and flow of their products. This capability streamlines communication processes and keeps clients up-to-date with project progress.
We use it to build mockups for mobile experiences to present to our clients. The mockups are interactive and can be shared to our clients including a phone frame. That is pretty neat. The tool itself is very slow and hard to work with. It is not intuitive and at first it seems like a good tool, but after you find the many limitations, it just doesn't work.
Pros
Getting a subscription
Sharing projects and mockups
Implementing a simple mockup
Cons
You have to call to cancel your subscription
Platform is very slow, mockups are slow, editor is slow.
Customer service is a joke
Lots of e-mail spam
Likelihood to Recommend
If you're a very simple designer, with very simple requirements UXPin is very good, especially because you can share the designs very easily.
If you are an advanced designer with specific client requirements never use UXPin. Don't even get started because you will waste your time. Example is their component feature, it has a lot, but misses very crucial aspects to be functional on a broader scale.
I brought UXPin into with me when I joined Fidelity Investments’ Innovation Lab as a Director of UX and Start-up Design Lead. This tool was used to produce hi-fidelity functional prototypes from concept to test to development to maintain design consistency for development. A side benefit allowed for a deeper understanding and working working process for both the front and back end development teams along with the UX and design teams who were a mix of co-located and distributed people. Our engineers could lean in and help designers with expression logic to help make concepts better with personalized experiences.
This tool offers something that most don’t. The interactions are real—not simulated—and previews of your work are presented HTML code, not converted to images. It’s a design tool that is technical enough for technologists to lean into, but powerfully enough that you don’t need it to produce the best prototypes engineers really got into it and created a lot of cross-team collaboration.
Pros
Collaboration with teammates.
Rapid prototyping.
Design Systems.
JSON File for content importing.
Bulk editing via library components.
Interactions, and micro UX.
Sharing and requesting feedback.
Version branching.
Spec mode for developers (access to assets).
Automatically produced visual style guide with fonts, colors, and imported assets.
Imports from sketch while keeping the shapes, colors, and fonts fully editable.
Boolean Pen (bezzier pen) for vector drawing, and pathfinder.
Annotation capability via documentation mode.
Password protect prototypes.
Upload custom fonts (enterprise, or Pro version is key imho).
1,000s of built in icons (iOS, Android, Font Awesome etc).
No search and replace for fonts (missing or just to replace).
Tool is built for design/dev teams but does not integrate content teams in well.
If you are not careful you can get lost in designing interactions when you should be just creating building blocks - don’t over animate!!!
There is currently no “scrub” or click-drag interaction which limits touch capability testing/concepts.
Editing adaptive versions of designs is very time consuming, edits to not ripple through from master viewport size. All updates are manual, even when creating an adaptive version.
When a library item is updated, it can revert changes you have made unknowingly.
Video integration is limited to online video host aggregators such as IMGR, YouTube, and Vimeo.
Not a ton of info for a designer on how to use the expressions effectively.
Prototypes with a lot of interactions can get slow, especially on computers with a lot of security software. It’s best to work with UXPin to figure out what is blocking APIs, and JS.
Likelihood to Recommend
UXPin is great for any screen based digital product. I have even used it at a “keynote” type of tool to build presentations. <div>
</div><div>This tool is so great because of its versatility—this is the toolbox I bring with me when I work, but it's not the only tool I use. This tools is great for teams to collectively work, build, share, and test their experiences in a supremely awesome way. People often think we are showing them a real working site when they see UXPin prototypes that I have produced. It can carry a project from the earliest of concept wire framing all the way to system design and component creation.
Some say this tool is only for building “full apps” or “complex experiences” but it really is a simple, and elegant tool to use for small projects too. The hardest part is committing to a new tool, which I can admit is tough. But this works so much like sketch and I don’t feel like the capabilities come through their website.
Having said that, I wouldn’t use this if I were going to try to simulate an application that had any sort of real-time click dragging, such as drag and dropping, or sliding of on screen visual elements because there are better tools out there for such interactions, and I am very specific on how real interactions are for my prototypes.
I really like doing cool micro animations such as the hamburger to the X, as well as smoothly animating page elements. However I would avoid doing complex animations or drawings/ logos with states—keep those in lottie or after effects and import them.
We use UXPin for multiple things including website wireframes, app wireframes, development specification documents for apps, etc. Several people in our organization use UXPin from our writer that heads up creating new sitemaps to our designers that use it to map out the flow of websites. We have found that our clients are more visual and have a hard time understanding how their websites and apps will flow. UXPin addresses that issue.
With UXPin, we're able to share working wireframes to allow our clients the ability to click through their proposed app screens and website pages. It also helps our development teams determine if something is really going to work or not before they go through all of the coding required to make something happen. The documentation section of UXPin has been a big asset for our teams in the last year. It helps our developers to spell out additional things that may not be as obvious when reviewing the wireframes. It also allows our clients a better way to provide feedback on the app and web flows we share with them.
Pros
Allows you to add documentation to the projects you create in order to further define functionality and flow.
Allows you to add images and other files to the projects you create in order to share a prettier blueprint of your projects to your clients.
Allows you to share previews of the projects you create easily with your clients.
Gives you a quick method for helping clients understand the functionality and flow of their product (i.e. a website, an app, etc.)
Cons
It would be nice to have the documentation available within the simulation so you don't have to toggle between the two.
Likelihood to Recommend
UXPin is an excellent resource for creating website and app flows and to better help our clients understand how their websites and apps will function. It also gives them a visual reference and some real-life application. It can be difficult for clients to truly understand how a website or an app flows from one page or screen to another via a phone call or web conference. UXPin helps us to illustrate these flows in a hands-on, visual format.
UXPin also helps our clients understand the purpose of a sitemap. We used to send our clients a sitemap in an outline format. While many understood that the top-level items on the outline were the main navigation of their website and other items were child pages, several did not. We have found that using UXPin to show the main level navigation, how in-page navigation and child pages (drop-down menus from the main navigation) work has been an integral step in getting approval on sitemaps.
Within the last year, my company’s design team started using UXPin to explore a wireframing and prototyping solution with robust tools for both creating wireframes and prototypes AND collaboration. We have many current tools in our arsenal, and we’ve used many other tools in the past, and one of our most consistent frustrations is that many of these tools do really well for designing but less well in collaboration (or vice versa). So now we’re using UXPin to see if we can save some costs by reducing the number of tools we pay for, and by saving us time in being able to use one tool for design and collaboration.
Pros
Robust ability to create both lo-fi and high fidelity prototypes—There are plenty of tools to use libraries, add animations, drag and drop Sketch files into designs, and use other functionalities to create designs.
Ability to annotate prototypes—The great annotation tool enables users to explain nuances and details for stakeholders, particularly for more complicated designs.
Ability to create tasks for user testing—Within the same platform you create a prototype, and you can list out the user testing tasks and send them along with a link to the prototype to testers. Note that you can even record and view testing recordings within this same platform.
Ability to create team libraries—UXPin allows users to create team libraries, which is great for brand and design consistency across designs and across projects.
Cons
Could be more intuitive—My team has been using UXPin for several months now, and it still feels like we are learning how to use it. It’s great to have a robust tool, but it’s not saving us any time when we’re still struggling to figure it out.
Can’t speak to or chat live with customer support—When things go wrong or get confusing, having to wait for an email is pretty frustrating.
It can be slow with more complex designs—UXPin is great for smaller designs, but the platform can get buggy and lag behind with more complex prototypes.
Likelihood to Recommend
UXPin is great for teams who seek an all-in-one wireframing, prototyping, collaboration, and user testing tool. For teams that require high levels of collaboration between designers and communication with stakeholders, UXPin is a wonderful, useful tool! It’s not a great tool for teams with less experience with similar tools, as it is a complicated platform that requires a steep learning curve. However, if a team is willing to invest the time and energy in learning how to use the tool, then UXPin can be a one-stop-shop for iterative design workflows.
VU
Verified User
Professional in Research & Development (51-200 employees)
In my case, UXPin is being used to create wireframes and mocks to brief our creative teams for Site Optimisation projects within the many clients we have. This allows us to collaboratively work and comment on UX proposals, easily share with internal stakeholders and also share with our clients when the mock is ready to be approved. Having a proof-of-concept UX that shows the functionality to the clients is massively important for us since it promotes transparency and allows us to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach. Also our Dev team finds it quite easy to export the CSS and just build the content in a quick way.
Pros
User flow
Wireframes
Easy share
Templates
Cons
No anchor links
Community templates and library assets
More price plans for smaller teams
Likelihood to Recommend
It's well suited for content teams, creative teams, front-end developer teams and optimization teams. This is a quick to use tool that enables non-technical UX suggestions and mocks to be created in an easy fashion and shared within teams and external stakeholders. Also it's easy to create whole journeys and different UX proposals which can be easily shared and reviewed with only one preview link.
Was using service to create a mockup of our home page. We wanted to try out the tool to see if we'd use it for our UX and wireframing.
Pros
Interface is clean
Cloud based
Cons
Lost half a day's work (3 hours).
Customer support lied to us telling us it was because we must have had an inconsistent internet connection. This makes no sense at all - we worked for full hours uploading images and other media to the document - all of which was saved continuosly. On top of that there was still one of the elements remaining at the end of the blank page which proves the previous addition of elements had been saved.
Customer support is only available via email.
Community website is buggy - not possible to use search field to search for help topics.
Likelihood to Recommend
UxPin would be well suited to the task of wireframing/prototyping if the system wasn't unstable and lost our work.
VU
Verified User
Engineer in Information Technology (1-10 employees)
UXPin is my go-to tool to create wireframes and lo-fidelity prototypes.
UXPin:
- is used by the product designers to build with interactive designs
- helps us experiment with different flows to get feedback from stakeholders and team members
- is used for design prototypes to test out interactions
- increases collaboration between team members
I used to use Omnigraffle, but it would be time-consuming to make an interactive low-fidelity prototype with it, so I switched to UXPin to speed up my workflow and increase the amount.
Pros
I enjoy the pre-built elements that you can search through and drop them into your prototype.
The comments and annotations are great to keep track of feedback and notes that you need to provide especially if you are a remote team.
Our team is remote, so the ability to quickly share a prototype is fantastic.
I like how you can iterate a lot and manage version control.
Cons
Sometimes, it can be a bit buggy and slow if the prototype is complex with dozens of layers.
The learning curve can be steep the first time you use it. Or, if you haven't used the app for awhile; I sometimes need to relearn it if I haven't used it for a month or so.
The loading times can be quite slow where a page gets stuck. It would be great if this didn't happen.
Likelihood to Recommend
UXPin is great for remote teams who need to quickly mock-up low fidelity wireframes and interactive prototypes. I don't think it's appropriate for high-fidelity work, InVision + Sketch is better.
VU
Verified User
Professional in Product Management (51-200 employees)
I use UXPin when I need wireframes to explain functionality and site planning. So our clients aren't "lost in the weeds" at this critical beginning phase, I purposefully design using simple typefaces, insert greeking instead of live text, and convert all graphics to grayscale. The interface is very intuitive and there are multiple ways to export and present your wireframe. I introduced it to our team and we all find it to be a useful tool.
Pros
Shallow learning curve—very intuitive interface
Libraries—many useful items to use in your design
Sharing—very easy to share with a group
Cons
Quick Preview—there were a few steps to view your project, but in Beta there is now just a button. I like that!
Likelihood to Recommend
UXPin is:
<ul><li>Perfect for wire-framing for presentations</li><li>Very easy to collaborate on a project with a team</li></ul>
UXPin is being used by the product cepartment to develop high fidelity wireframes for our product.
Pros
UXPin is very easy to learn -- I was able to get up to speed quickly making high fidelity, interactive prototypes. This is important to me because the shift from our previous prototyping method to UXPin needs to happen quickly, and the prototypes need to be top notch.
Layers, interactions, and styling capabilities are done well.
Team Library and Smart Elements are great for collaboration within my group.
Cons
The Preview function seems buggy and takes a really long time to load previews of even simple pages.
The inability to name and/or delete "recently created" interactions is not great. The generic naming (example -- "On Hover: Color") isn't useful if you want to repeat an interaction via that list. It's hard to know which is which if you have several of the same types listed with the same generic name (each with a different color, for example).
All of the faces of the fonts I'd like to use (example: Roboto) are not available. You only have the option of bold and italic, when the actual Google font has thin, light, medium, bold, black, etc.
Likelihood to Recommend
UXPin is very well suited for high fidelity wire framing and UX/UI team collaboration.
One of our frequent mantra's is 'wireframe everything'. We found that UXPin is the best at meeting our needs for doing that. As part of our process, from the very beginning we wireframe as much of the site as possible and present clients a working link where they can click through to each page. This allows them to start to see how we think and let them know what we are missing. It's a much more real experience and it sets expectations on them for the content they need to provide us. With the use of UXPin's smart elements we can create layouts fast and correct based on clients modifications just as easily. As a designer it helps me take control of the conversation and address client concerns so that we know what content and assets are available to use before we start design. The wireframes also serve as a blueprint for our development department because they cover things like what form fields will be available and what areas clients will need to be able to edit content. Overall it creates a much more collaborative experience that encourages conversation before design decisions are made or code is written.
Pros
Smart elements are super nice because they allow me to create complicated features that will appear on every page. When the client wants to change something it is very easy to do so in one place.
Working on grid is important to me. Having the ability to change and manipulate that grid in UXPin is just what I need.
There are tons of add on features like Font Awesome icons and prebuilt stuff that not only looks great, but also just lets me get ideas across fast without committing to what the final design is going to look like.
I love the ability to edit things if I want. I can control several details, but it's not too overwhelming. They include various font options from Google fonts as well. You can design as much or as little as you want. The interface doesn't get in the way. It's there if you want it but has a simplicity that is nice.
Having a link on a live webpage is a necessity. As soon as you make changes, they are live. No more worrying about which is the latest version.
I'm a photoshop user so it has a few keyboard commands that are familiar like hold 'alt', click and drag to duplicate is nice!
Cons
It would be nice if the link that I share with my clients is shorter. It's so long and unintelligible.
Copy and paste doesn't always paste where you think it will. It would be a time saver if you copied a smart element from one page and then pasted it down at the same x and y coordinates on the next page.
'Cntrl' + 'Z' is good for one undo but try to undo more than a few and I'm not sure what is happening in the background. I had it undo some things that were out of my view on the page and I couldn't put them back without rebuilding the section.
I don't like to show my clients the link with comment mode turned on because it causes confusion. I wish there was a way to turn it off for a set of wireframes so that I don't have to turn it off every time I am about to send the link.
When you pull an image by a corner it is too easy to accidentally stretch and image. In my opinion is should default to keeping the image proportionate. People that don't know better will stretch things without knowing and there is not a way to reset to the actual size.
Likelihood to Recommend
I think UXPin is really well suited for wireframes and getting a complete idea of the structure of a site because of it's flexibility. I could see someone designing a complete site in UXPin but for my needs Photoshop gives me more control over manipulating and creating unique elements that are specific to my designs. UXPin does a great job for us in starting the conversation, translating intent and delivering client content all the way to development.
