Difficulty: Beginner · Last updated: December 26, 2026 · By Mantlr Editorial
A working designer's comparison of Figma Make and v0 — what each does best, where they differ, and how to pick the right one for your project.
Key takeaways
Six things to know before picking between Figma Make and v0:
1. Figma Make targets designers; v0 targets developers (especially Vercel-stack teams)
2. Figma Make integrates with Figma directly; v0 doesn't read Figma files natively
3. v0 ships components in the shadcn/ui ecosystem; Figma Make uses a broader component approach
4. v0 is tightly coupled to Vercel deployment; Figma Make publishes to *.figma.site5. Figma Make is bundled with Figma plans; v0 has separate Vercel-tied pricing
6. They overlap less than they appear — different primary users, different deployment paths
On this page
- The short answer
- What is Figma Make?
- What is v0?
- Side-by-side comparison
- When to pick Figma Make
- When to pick v0
- Where they overlap (and how to choose)
- The shadcn question — component ecosystem fit
- The deployment question — where your app lives
- The team question — who uses each
- Common mistakes picking between them
- Frequently asked questions
- Related articles
Figma Make and v0 occupy adjacent territory but serve different jobs. Figma Make is the design-led prompt-to-app tool built into Figma. v0 is the developer-led prompt-to-component tool built by Vercel. Both produce React + Tailwind code. Both can generate apps from natural language prompts. On the surface, they look like competitors. In practice, they fit different workflows.
This guide walks through how to choose between them. We've used both on real projects across the past year. The decision usually comes down to two factors: your team's primary skillset (design vs. engineering) and your deployment target (Figma's hosting vs. Vercel's). Pick wrong on either and you'll fight the tool. Pick right and you'll ship faster than expected.
If you're new to Figma Make entirely, read What Is Figma Make? first. For the Lovable comparison, see Figma Make vs Lovable.
Quick wins
1. Already working in Figma? Start with Figma Make. The integration value is hard to beat.
2. Already shipping on Vercel with shadcn? Start with v0. The ecosystem fit is hard to beat.
3. Both have free tiers — spend 30 minutes with each on a small task before committing to one.
The short answer
If you don't want to read the full comparison:
Pick Figma Make when: you're a designer or design-led team, you work in Figma daily, you want design-to-prototype continuity, you value design system fidelity (with Make kits), or you're prototyping rather than shipping production code.
Pick v0 when: you're a developer or engineer-led team, you're building on shadcn/ui, you deploy on Vercel, you need quick component generation rather than full app generation, or you want generated code that integrates cleanly into an existing codebase.
Use both when: different team members work in different workflows. Design teams use Figma Make for prototypes. Engineering teams use v0 for component scaffolding in production codebases. They don't compete on a single project — they serve different jobs.
The rest of this article explains the reasoning.
What is Figma Make?
Figma Make is Figma's prompt-to-app tool, launched in 2025 and matured through 2026 with Make kits, Make attachments, Supabase backend integration, and a model picker. It runs on Claude Sonnet 4.5 by default, with options to switch to Gemini or GPT.
The defining feature is integration with Figma Design. You can import existing Figma files into Make, and the tool uses your structured design data (components, layout, styles) to generate code. For designers who already work in Figma, the workflow continuity is significant.
Output is React + Tailwind, runnable in Make's preview, publishable to a *.figma.site URL. Backend integration is Supabase-only. The full picture is in What Is Figma Make?.
What is v0?
v0 is Vercel's AI code generation tool. Launched in 2023 and matured through 2024-2026, v0 generates React components and pages from natural language prompts. It's tightly integrated with the shadcn/ui ecosystem — most output uses shadcn components by default.
The tool lives at v0.dev and produces code optimized for the Vercel deployment ecosystem. While v0 can generate full apps, its sweet spot is component generation — generate a complex component, copy the code into your existing Next.js codebase, customize as needed.
v0 doesn't read Figma files natively. To use Figma context, you'd need to attach screenshots or use the Figma MCP server through an MCP-compatible client.
v0's target user skews developer. Many designers use it for inspiration and component reference, but the tool assumes comfort with code, GitHub workflows, and Next.js patterns.
Side-by-side comparison
The detailed decision matrix, written for scannability:
Tool family
Figma Make: Built into Figma. Part of Figma's product family — Figma Design, Make, Sites, Slides, FigJam.
v0: Built by Vercel. Part of Vercel's ecosystem alongside Next.js, Vercel deployment, and Vercel AI SDK.
Primary user
Figma Make: Designers and design-led teams. PMs from design backgrounds. Founders who think visually.
v0: Developers and engineering-led teams. PMs from engineering backgrounds. Frontend engineers building on shadcn.
Starting point
Figma Make: Best when starting from existing Figma designs. Structured Figma data feeds generation directly.
v0: Best when starting from a prompt or component description. Image references work but aren't as structured as Make's Figma input.
Output framework
Figma Make: React + Tailwind. Custom component generation with Make kits for design system fidelity.
v0: React + Tailwind + shadcn/ui. Default output uses shadcn components and Radix UI primitives.
Generation scope
Figma Make: Full app generation. Multi-screen flows, working interactions, backend integration.
v0: Component generation is the sweet spot. Full apps work but the tool excels at single complex components or pages.
AI model
Figma Make: Claude Sonnet 4.5 by default. Model picker (Gemini, GPT) available.
v0: Vercel's own model configuration. Less user-facing model choice.
Backend support
Figma Make: Supabase integration. Native backend setup via prompts.
v0: Frontend-focused. Backend integration is more manual — typically done in the Next.js app you import v0 output into.
Code access
Figma Make: Code editor inside Make file. Cloud-only sandbox. No local development environment.
v0: Generated code copyable directly to clipboard or downloadable. Designed to be pasted into existing codebases.
Design system fidelity
Figma Make: Strong with Make kits configured. Weak without.
v0: Strong if you use shadcn/ui as your design system. Weak if you use a different system that v0 doesn't have native support for.
Deployment
Figma Make: One-click publish to *.figma.site. Standalone hosted app.
v0: Tightly coupled to Vercel deployment. Generated code expects Next.js + Vercel hosting.
Pricing model
Figma Make: Included in Figma paid plans. AI credit usage applies.
v0: Separate subscription. Tied to Vercel account. Free tier, then usage-based pricing.
Learning curve
Figma Make: Lower if you already use Figma. Familiar interface.
v0: Lower if you already use Next.js + shadcn. Familiar code patterns.
When to pick Figma Make
Five clear cases where Figma Make is the better choice:
1. You work in Figma daily. The import workflow from Figma Design to Figma Make is the killer feature. If you're already in Figma, you don't context-switch.
2. You want design-to-prototype continuity. Existing Figma designs feed Make's structured data input. The output starts closer to your original design than starting fresh in v0.
3. Brand fidelity matters. With Make kits, Make produces output that matches your real design system more reliably than v0 (unless your design system is shadcn/ui, which v0 handles natively).
4. You're prototyping for stakeholders. Make's one-click publish to *.figma.site is the fastest path to a shareable URL. For stakeholder demos, this matters.
5. Your team is designer-led. Make's interface assumes Figma fluency. Designer-led teams pick up Make faster than v0.
When to pick v0
Five clear cases where v0 is the better choice:
1. You're building on shadcn/ui. v0's native shadcn output is the strongest ecosystem fit in the AI code generation category. If your stack is Next.js + shadcn + Tailwind + Vercel, v0 produces code that drops cleanly into your existing setup.
2. You're shipping production code, not prototypes. v0's output is designed to be paste-ready in existing Next.js codebases. Make's output is for prototyping; v0's is for component scaffolding in real apps.
3. You deploy on Vercel. v0's integration with Vercel deployment is tight. If your hosting is already Vercel, v0 produces code optimized for that environment.
4. You need quick component generation. v0 excels at generating a single complex component (a data table with filters, an animated form, a dashboard card). For a one-off component, v0 is faster than Make's full-app generation.
5. Your team is developer-led. v0 assumes code comfort. Engineers and engineer-leaning PMs pick up v0 faster than designer-led teams.
Where they overlap (and how to choose)
Three scenarios where both could work. The deciding factors:
Scenario A: Building a landing page
- Have Figma designs already? Figma Make.
- Building on shadcn/ui and Vercel? v0.
- Mixed team? Whichever tool the person doing the work knows better.
Scenario B: Generating a complex form component
- For a prototype or demo? Figma Make.
- For production deployment? v0.
- Need backend logic? Figma Make handles this better natively.
Scenario C: Internal dashboard
- Brand fidelity matters? Figma Make with Make kits.
- Code will live in a real Next.js codebase? v0.
- Throwaway prototype? Either.
The pattern: Figma Make wins on design-led, prototype-first, brand-critical work. v0 wins on code-led, production-ready, shadcn-ecosystem work.
The shadcn question — component ecosystem fit
The biggest practical difference between Make and v0 is the component ecosystem.
v0 + shadcn/ui: v0 was built around the shadcn/ui component system. Default output uses shadcn components and Radix primitives. If your project uses shadcn, v0's output integrates cleanly. You can copy generated components into your codebase and they'll match your existing patterns.
Figma Make + Make kits: Make uses a more general approach. Without Make kits, it generates components from scratch using common React patterns. With Make kits, it uses your custom design system components. Either approach is more bespoke than v0's shadcn-default.
For teams committed to shadcn/ui:
- v0 produces output that drops into existing shadcn codebases without modification
- Figma Make produces output that requires component swapping if your codebase uses shadcn
For teams using a custom design system:
- Figma Make with Make kits produces output that matches your system
- v0 produces output that you'd refactor to match your system
The honest framing: if you're shadcn-native, v0 is hard to beat for component output. If you're not, Figma Make with Make kits is more flexible.
The deployment question — where your app lives
Where your generated app gets hosted is a meaningful decision factor.
Figma Make publishing:
- One-click publish to
*.figma.siteURLs - Real working web apps
- Limited custom domain support (paid Figma plans)
- Tied to Figma's hosting infrastructure
- Best for prototypes, demos, user testing
v0 deployment:
- Generates code for Vercel deployment
- Code drops into existing Next.js codebases or deploys to fresh Vercel projects
- Full custom domain support through Vercel
- Tied to Vercel's hosting infrastructure
- Best for production deployment
If your team is committed to Vercel, v0's integration is significant. If your team uses other hosting (AWS, GCP, custom servers), v0 still produces usable code but the deployment path is more manual.
Figma Make's publishing is fast and simple for prototypes but limited for production-grade deployment. For real production hosting with custom domains, certificates, and edge functions, the Vercel + v0 combination is more mature.
Get the next article in your inbox
Mantlr publishes one practical, no-fluff article like this every Saturday. Free design resources, evaluation guides, and editorial takes on what's worth using.
Subscribe to Mantlr Editorial →
5,400+ designers and founders. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The team question — who uses each
A pattern visible across teams adopting these tools:
Designers gravitate to Figma Make first. It feels like an extension of their existing workflow. The first useful prototype happens within an hour. No code review required.
Frontend engineers gravitate to v0 first. It produces code they can read, understand, and integrate into existing codebases. The output respects React conventions they know.
Full-stack and product engineers are split. Depends on what they're building. Marketing pages and components → v0. Multi-screen apps with backends → Figma Make or Lovable.
Cross-functional teams use both. Designers prototype in Make. Engineers extract components in v0. The tools complement when teams stop forcing themselves to pick one.
For solo workers, pick the tool that matches your primary skillset. For teams, having both available avoids the "wrong tool for the job" problem.
Common mistakes picking between them
Five mistakes designers and engineers make when choosing:
Mistake 1: Picking v0 because "it's for developers" without checking your stack. v0 is optimal for shadcn + Next.js + Vercel. If you use different tools, v0's advantages diminish.
Mistake 2: Picking Figma Make because "it's for designers" without considering deployment. Make publishes to *.figma.site URLs. If you need production-grade hosting with custom domains, Make's deployment is limited.
Mistake 3: Assuming you have to choose one tool forever. Many teams use both for different projects. Don't force yourself to pick "the winner."
Mistake 4: Picking before testing both. Both have free tiers. Spend 30 minutes with each. The hands-on experience reveals which one fits your workflow better than any comparison article (including this one).
Mistake 5: Picking based on hype. v0 had a big moment in 2023-2024. Make had its moments in 2025-2026. Both tools have iterated significantly. Current capability matters more than past hype cycles.
Frequently asked questions
Is Figma Make or v0 better?
Neither is universally better. Figma Make is best for designer-led teams, brand-critical prototypes, and projects starting from Figma designs. v0 is best for engineer-led teams, shadcn-based projects, and production component generation. They overlap less than they appear because they target different primary users.
Can v0 read Figma files?
Not natively. v0 doesn't have built-in Figma integration the way Make does. You can attach screenshots of Figma designs to v0, but the structured Figma data input that Make provides isn't available in v0.
Does Figma Make use shadcn/ui?
Not by default. Make's output uses general React + Tailwind patterns. With Make kits configured, you can bring shadcn/ui (or any other React design system) into Make as an npm package. Without Make kits, v0 has stronger native shadcn support.
Which is better for production code?
v0, in most cases. v0's output is designed to be paste-ready in existing Next.js codebases. Make's output is for prototyping — shipping it as production code creates technical debt. For production work, v0 + your existing codebase is the better path.
Which is better for prototyping?
Figma Make, in most cases. Make's design-to-prototype workflow is faster for design-led iterations. The one-click publish to *.figma.site makes stakeholder sharing trivial.
Which is cheaper?
Depends on your existing tools. If you're already on Figma paid plans, Make is bundled — no extra cost. If you're already on Vercel, v0 is bundled with your Vercel account. The cheaper tool is usually the one tied to a subscription you already pay for.
Can I use both Figma Make and v0?
Yes, and many teams do. Use Make for designer-led prototype work. Use v0 for engineer-led component scaffolding in production codebases. They don't compete on a single project.
Which AI model does each tool use?
Figma Make uses Claude Sonnet 4.5 by default, with a model picker for Gemini or GPT. v0 uses Vercel's own model configuration, which abstracts the underlying models. Both produce comparable quality for typical use cases.
Which has better community and resources?
v0 has been around longer and has a larger ecosystem of community examples, tutorials, and shared components. Figma Make is newer but benefits from Figma's broader community. Both have official documentation and community discussions.
Where can I find more AI design tool comparisons?
Mantlr publishes comparison articles regularly. See Figma Make vs Lovable, Figma Agent vs Figma Make vs Figma MCP, and other evaluation guides at mantlr.com.
Build with Mantlr's curated library
You've picked the tool. The remaining work is using it well — and finding the design resources that complement your workflow.
Mantlr lists 521 designer-vetted free design resources across 43 categories — every one license-verified, production-tested, free of email walls.
Browse Mantlr → · Subscribe to weekly editorial →
Related articles
If you're picking between AI design tools, these articles cover the connected ecosystem:
- What Is Figma Make? — The foundational article on Make.
- Figma Make vs Lovable — Direct comparison with the full-stack alternative.
- Figma Make Limitations — Honest framing of what Make can't do.
- How to Set Up the Figma MCP Server — Connect external tools (including ones supporting v0-like workflows) to Figma.
- The Complete Guide to Free Design Resources and AI Tools in 2026 — Mantlr's pillar guide to the full resource library.
About Mantlr Editorial
Mantlr is a free directory of designer-vetted, license-verified design resources. We test every resource before listing. No email walls. No paid placements. No affiliate dressing.
This article was written by Mantlr Editorial, the team behind a curated library of 521 free design resources. We work in production design daily and only recommend resources we'd use ourselves.
Last updated: December 26, 2026. Article reviewed quarterly for accuracy.