InVision Studio vs Figma: Which Is Better for Teams?### Overview
Design teams choosing between InVision Studio and Figma need to weigh collaboration, workflow fit, file management, performance, and ecosystem. This article compares both tools across core dimensions to help teams decide which is better for their needs.
1. Collaboration & Real-time work
Figma was built for real-time, multi-user collaboration: multiple team members can edit the same file simultaneously, see cursors, comment inline, and resolve feedback without leaving the canvas. This makes Figma particularly strong for distributed teams and rapid iteration.
InVision Studio originally focused on high-fidelity screen design and animation with strong handoff through InVision Cloud. While InVision Cloud provides commenting and prototype sharing, Studio’s real-time co-editing history and simultaneous multi-editor experience lag behind Figma’s native capabilities.
Winner for collaboration: Figma
2. Prototyping & Interaction Design
Both tools support prototyping, but their strengths differ. InVision Studio provides advanced timeline-based animation and micro-interaction tools that make complex transitions and motion design easier to craft within the app. Studio’s animation interface is closer to motion tools used by interaction designers.
Figma offers robust prototyping with smart animate, interactive components, and easy linking. While its animation tools are not as timeline-focused as Studio’s, Figma’s prototyping covers the vast majority of product workflows and benefits from instant sharing and simple device preview.
Best for motion-heavy prototypes: InVision Studio
Best overall prototyping for teams: Figma
3. Component Systems & Design Systems
Figma’s component system (components, variants, component libraries) is highly polished and supports scalable design systems with shared libraries, versioning, and flexible overrides. Teams can publish libraries that others subscribe to, update components centrally, and inspect changes before accepting updates.
InVision Studio integrates with InVision’s DSM (Design System Manager) in the InVision ecosystem, allowing reusable components and pattern libraries. Historically DSM has been less seamless and more fragmented than Figma’s single-file-library approach, though it can work well when the team is already embedded in the InVision ecosystem.
Winner for design systems and scale: Figma
4. File Management, Versioning & Handoff
Figma stores files in the cloud with predictable version history and branching (via FigJam and Team Libraries) that’s easy to manage. Developers can inspect CSS values, copy assets, and get accurate specs from the shared file.
InVision Studio uses local files with cloud sync options via InVision Cloud; handoff is facilitated through Inspect and integrations. Teams used to a mix of local and cloud workflows may find Studio’s model less consistent than Figma’s single-cloud paradigm.
Winner for file management and handoff: Figma
5. Performance & Platform Support
Figma runs in the browser and as a desktop app, and is generally performant across platforms because heavy work is offloaded to the cloud — although extremely large files can still cause slowdowns. Figma works on Windows, macOS, and Chromebooks.
InVision Studio is a native desktop app (macOS and Windows) and can feel snappier for local operations, especially for animation work. However, collaboration and cross-platform consistency can be limited compared to Figma’s web-first approach.
Winner for cross-platform consistency and remote performance: Figma
Winner for local animation performance: InVision Studio
6. Plugins, Integrations & Ecosystem
Figma has a large, active plugin ecosystem and many third-party integrations (Slack, Jira, Zeplin alternatives, FigJam, Figmotion, etc.). Its API and community plugins accelerate workflows and automate repetitive tasks.
InVision Studio and InVision Cloud offer integrations within the InVision ecosystem and some third-party plugins, but the overall marketplace and community contributions are smaller than Figma’s.
Winner for ecosystem and extensibility: Figma
7. Pricing & Team Plans
Pricing changes over time; generally, Figma offers free tiers with collaboration features and paid team/org plans that scale with users. InVision provides free/premium tiers for individual and team products; full-feature access to Studio features and DSM may require paid InVision plans.
Teams should compare current pricing, storage, and user limits directly before deciding.
8. Use Cases & Recommendations
- If your team prioritizes real-time collaboration, cloud-based workflows, robust design systems, and cross-platform access: Figma is the better choice.
- If your team needs advanced timeline-based animation and you already use the InVision ecosystem heavily: InVision Studio may be preferable for motion-rich UI work.
- For mixed requirements: many teams use Figma for primary design and collaboration, and export assets or use Studio for specialized motion work when needed.
Final Verdict
For most modern, distributed product/design teams, Figma offers a more complete, collaborative, and scalable solution. InVision Studio remains valuable when advanced, timeline-driven animation and local performance are a priority, or when an organization is already invested in InVision’s wider toolset.