The managment selected Marvel, the users selected Figma. Thus, we work on Marvel and we have issues with the UX of our apps because of that. Figma enable to zoom out and easily design across several screens. It enables component that have a behaviour in one screen. Figma is a …
Verified User
Analyst
Chose Marvel
In some works, I prefer to use InVision than Marvel for high fidelity prototypes, as there is a wide variety of interactions and micro-interactions available, but still, I use marvel a lot for quick prototyping. It also uses Figma a lot for high-fidelity prototypes. The …
Marvel isn’t the most robust prototyping tool, but its simplicity is what makes the tool rise to the top when it comes to creating quick, simple prototypes to elicit feedback on designs and iterate upon them. While tools like InVision and Axure provide many tools to make more …
Ultimately, InVision was just a better fit for our company's needs. It's probably faster to create prototypes using Marvel, but InVision's collaboration features (comments, notes, etc.) are much more robust, which was helpful for our large team spread across multiple …
Marvel creates prototypes much faster than InVision. Both tools use global hotspots---a global hotspot is a linked area which is visible on multiple screens. Marvel has a better UX for setting up new hotspots. Marvel asks only necessary questions, does not interrupt the flow, …
Marvel has replaces InVision for me in terms of quick prototyping for high-fidelity mockups. There is a greater variety of interactions, especially between screens, and overall it seems to just have a sleeker feels. I still use Principle over Marvel for more detailed …
Marvel is a very competitive product as compare to all these other products, but the products I have mentioned, mostly are paid application except for Vectr. Considering the amount of features you get and quality of the application for free is awesome and that is why I …
Marvel is a very strong tool in scenarios where designers seek to quickly create simple prototypes on their desktops using a simple, intuitive interface. It offers “just enough” functionality to create somewhat realistic designs to present to stakeholders and other designers. However, there’s a limit to how “realistic” those designs can be, given that Marvel has somewhat limited functionality around animations. Marvel is not a strong option for those who want to create very complex prototypes with many animations, or for those who want to edit prototypes on their tablet or phone. Marvel is a jewel for simplicity but starts to be difficult to use when creating complicated designs. For creating more complicated prototypes, I would recommend a more robust tool, such as Axure.
I really miss being able to duplicate, make a copy of the prototype I'm working on. Sometimes, I want to make a comparison with detail changes and without being able to duplicate it is difficult.
Compared to other similar services, I feel the animations could be more fluid and smoother.
It could have more free sophisticated icons and images.
Ultimately, InVision was just a better fit for our company's needs. It's probably faster to create prototypes using Marvel, but InVision's collaboration features (comments, notes, etc.) are much more robust, which was helpful for our large team spread across multiple continents. InVision also offers more advanced features, and Marvel felt a little too limited for our overall business needs.