8 Best Prototyping Tools for Interactive Designs

A clickable prototype helps people experience an idea before a team commits to building it. This roundup is for designers, freelancers, students and small product teams who want to test an app flow or show how a website might behave.

The tools range from quick screen linking to detailed interaction logic and website publishing. Choose according to what you need to learn: a prototype for feedback can be much simpler than a near-finished interactive demonstration.

Quick picks

• Best overall: Figma — combine interface screens, comments and shareable prototypes.
• Best for interactive web pages: Framer — bring a visual site concept close to a published result.
• Best for realistic device behaviour: ProtoPie — build interactions using triggers and responses.
• Best for complex flows: Axure RP — represent conditions and product logic in detail.

How we picked

We considered tools that help people communicate and test interactive ideas, not just draw static screens. Their strengths differ, so compare the complexity you need with the time your collaborators can spend learning the workflow.

• Prototype depth: can it show the interactions you need to test?
• Sharing: how easily can a reviewer try the result?
• Learning effort: does the tool suit your team's experience?
• Handoff: can design and implementation stay connected?
• Cost access: is there a free entry point or trial?

Flexible interface tools

1. Figma

Figma combines interface design with clickable prototyping, letting a team connect screens and share a preview for review. Comments and collaborative editing make it convenient when feedback happens alongside design work. Its built-in interactions are not a replacement for custom application logic, and detailed behaviours may be better tested in code. It offers a free plan with paid upgrades.

Best for: product teams who want design files and reviewable flows in one shared workspace.

2. Framer

Framer is a visual website design and publishing platform with interactions and animation tools. It suits designers exploring how a landing page or marketing site will feel in a browser, and a polished concept can move toward a live site in the same environment. It is less suited to modelling complex app logic, and publishing workflows introduce decisions beyond a simple prototype. It offers a free plan with paid upgrades.

Best for: web designers presenting responsive pages with motion and a realistic browser feel.

3. Penpot

Penpot is an open-source design and prototyping platform that runs in the browser. Its open approach can appeal to teams that value inspectable tools and want to collaborate on interface concepts without centring a proprietary design file. Some teams may need to adjust established workflows or check whether specific integrations meet their needs. It is available free, with paid options also offered.

Best for: learners and teams seeking an open-source route to interface design and prototyping.

4. Marvel

Marvel focuses on making screen-based prototypes and sharing them for feedback. Its straightforward linking approach is useful when a beginner needs to demonstrate a basic journey without building extensive interaction rules. It is not the choice for intricate conditional behaviour or a production-ready website, and current availability and plan details should be checked before a project depends on it. It offers a free plan with paid upgrades.

Best for: newcomers making a simple screen-to-screen demonstration for early feedback.

Detailed interactions and flows

5. ProtoPie

ProtoPie lets designers build prototypes with triggers, responses and variables, supporting interactions that go beyond a sequence of static screens. It is particularly helpful for exploring mobile behaviours and connected-device concepts in a convincing demo. That depth comes with a learning curve, and teams should confirm which sharing and collaboration features suit their process. A free trial is available before moving to a paid plan.

Best for: interaction designers testing nuanced touch, sensor or device behaviours.

6. Axure RP

Axure RP supports detailed wireframes and prototypes with conditional logic, dynamic content and documentation. Product teams can use it to demonstrate flows where a user choice changes what happens next, rather than relying on a collection of disconnected screens. Its interface and capabilities can feel heavy for a small visual concept, and casual reviewers may need guidance. A free trial is available before moving to a paid plan.

Best for: teams specifying complex journeys with branching paths and interface states.

7. Origami Studio

Origami Studio is a visual prototyping application from Meta that uses connected patches to express interactive behaviour. The patch-based approach allows designers to experiment with custom logic and animation while seeing the result update. It is a more specialised workflow than straightforward screen linking, and its Mac-focused availability can limit a mixed-device team. It is available at no cost.

Best for: designers on Mac exploring custom interactions and motion beyond basic transitions.

8. Webflow

Webflow is a visual website platform with layout, interaction and publishing capabilities. It works well when the prototype is a web page and the team wants to see real responsive layouts and interactions in a browser rather than simulate screens. It is not a general-purpose app-flow tool, and moving from prototype to publication requires attention to hosting and site structure. It offers a free plan with paid upgrades.

Best for: designers testing a website concept that may ultimately be built and published there.

How to choose the right one

Write down the question your prototype needs to answer. If reviewers only need to understand navigation, connect a few screens in a familiar design tool. If the test depends on gestures, timing or conditional states, choose a deeper interaction editor; for a site concept, a browser-based website platform may show responsive behaviour more honestly.

Make a small test with the people who will actually review or maintain the file. Check that a share link works for them, that the key path is obvious, and that motion does not obscure content or exclude people who prefer reduced movement. Include realistic labels and enough content to reveal awkward spacing; placeholder screens can make a flow seem clearer than it is. Ask testers to complete a specific task without coaching, then note where their expectations diverge from the design. Keep the prototype narrow enough that changes remain quick. Stockio's aspect ratio calculator helps check screen and media proportions while preparing a presentation. Explore the animation directory for related motion resources and design resources for more ways to support the project.

Key takeaways

• Prototype to answer a question: avoid polishing details that will not affect the test.
• Match depth to behaviour: simple navigation needs less than conditional interaction.
• Make review easy: test sharing and playback on the devices your audience uses.
• Check the handoff: consider who will maintain the file after the presentation.
• Use motion deliberately: movement should clarify an action or state, not hide it.