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 …
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 …
Adobe XD is so much more than UXPin, with Adobe Cloud you can easily share designs as well. We used Adobe XD before changing to UXPin. At first UXPin seems so advanced and helpful, but don't get fooled. You're heavily limited in the long run, and after all the training and …
The first thing I’ll say is the learning curve is way lighter on UXPin. Also UXPin updates their app, and performance routinely and adds new features based on community needs.
It’s the first web-based tool that outputs code rendered in the browser from a design created in a …
Marvel was great for helping to define app flows and apply app designs to give our clients a better visual of how their apps would flow and work in order to assist with UX. However, we needed something a bit more robust. We weren't just looking for something that was pretty. We …
There are definitely pros to these other tools, but UXPin gains a significant edge by providing tools to perform several significant steps of the design workflow in one place. For instance, we could wireframe in LucidChart, prototype in Marvel, then manually perform user …
Quick to prototype, easy to share, multiple devices, fully responsive breakpoints, export CSS, publishing from the tool, Photoshop integration. Has a fairly easy to use interface when compared to InVision and quite easy to integrate with other tools and collaboration solutions …
Between UXPin and Balsamiq, I think UXPin gives you better control over the designs and iterations. UXPin seems to continuously iterate on their own product to make it better. I like how UXPin fits in nicely with my workflow.
We'd been using Adobe Photoshop for our high fidelity wireframes up until now. Photoshop is a great tool (one of my favorites!), however, UXPin is allowing us to provide living, breathing, interactive wireframes/prototypes that really help us communicate with our engineers and …
I went through several tools trying to find something that was easy to use and made me faster. Visio was such a pain at creating something reusable to make me faster, too much building. Axure and Balsamiq looked like great options but were too cumbersome for my needs and I …
The best Marvel scenario is when you have an application that has different navigability options, and it is a long project. Marvel works to design these applications, as well as give a demo in the design to present it to customers and visualize how your application will be on the client side. This is an advantage for the whole team because the client knows what to expect, and the developer know what to develop. I also appreciate the logical order between options and navigation, which allows you to carry everything out very cleanly when working. Now, if there are projects that are short and do not have a level of design that requires you to present your application to a client in a visual way, it is not necessary to work on Marvel, since the ideal use of this application is to really see the scope of a project, to see in a visual way what will be presented and how it will look, and to see functions and features that will be available in some way when the application is developed. That is the great advantage of using marvel.
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.
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.
We'll definitely continue to use UXPin. Right now it provides us with everything we need in order to deliver quality projects to our clients. If at any point in time, UXPin doesn't provide us with what we need, we'll start vetting other software out there that may be similar. My guess is that UXPin will continue to make updates and improvements so we'll likely stick with it for quite some time.
As far as I know, my teams have only had to use the UXPin support once. The experience went really well. We just needed a bit of assistance with using the Documentation feature. UXPin's support was quick and helped my team in a matter of minutes. We will definitely reach out to their support without hesitation in the future.
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 realistic, animation-heavy designs, Marvel is a go-to for a simple interface that enables designers to “just design.” Sometimes it is not necessary to have all of the bells and whistles of a stronger tool, particularly when a designer is low on time. Marvel’s simplicity allows designers to quickly design and iterate in time crunches without the distractions of fancy bells and whistles.
I went through several tools trying to find something that was easy to use and made me faster. Visio was such a pain at creating something reusable to make me faster, too much building. Axure and Balsamiq looked like great options but were too cumbersome for my needs and I couldn't get to the live link fast enough. Moqups was my first choice before I heard about UXPin. I switched to UXPin because the had more built in features, more icons and just an overall better and more usable interface that appealed to my design side.
Creating prototypes of applications, or sites in marvel, guarantees me a considerable return, as it saves time and effort, because the client is quickly introduced to the various stages of prototyping, which avoids rework.
Another plus point, it's free!
No need to download programs, it's all done online.
Saving money by using one tool for lo-fi wireframing, high fidelity wireframing, prototyping, and user testing, rather than four separate tools.
The ability to create and use team libraries enables us to create visually consistent designs with less effort than creating every single design from scratch, which allows us to save considerable time (and therefore money!)
In-platform collaboration saves our team a lot of time and energy. With everything in one place (wireframes, prototypes, user feedback, collaboration comments), we can all be on the same page about the design workflow and pinpoint discussion points that are based on up-to-date designs.