If you've tried describing a screen to an AI and gotten back a picture instead of something you can actually ship, you know the gap this new wave of tools is trying to close. Stitch and Wonder both promise the same basic trick: you sketch, type, or talk through an interface, and instead of a mockup, you get real React and Tailwind code you can hand to a developer — or ship yourself. They're each other's direct alternatives, but they come from very different places and make different tradeoffs.
Stitch — Google's free, no-account-friction option
Stitch is a Google Labs tool: you describe an app screen by text, voice, or by sketching on paper and photographing it, and it generates an editable interface — plus the actual React and Tailwind code behind it — so a non-designer can get from idea to something real fast. It's entirely free with a Google account, with a generous quota of up to 350 designs a month running on Gemini 2.5, and it exports directly to Figma as editable frames if you want to keep working there.
Strengths: completely free with a genuinely usable quota, multiple ways to describe what you want (text, voice, sketch, screenshot), real generated code rather than just images, and a clean export path into Figma.
Limits: it's a "Google Labs" product, which carries real risk of being discontinued or changed without warning (Google has a track record here). It's also tied to the Google/Gemini ecosystem, and it's less mature than a dedicated paid prototyping tool — you're trading polish for price.
Best for: designers, developers and product teams who want to prototype fast without spending anything, and who are comfortable with the risk that a Labs product might not be around forever.
Wonder — a paid canvas where the design IS the code
Wonder takes a more ambitious position: it's a design canvas where an AI agent works alongside you to build interfaces, graphics and slide decks — and unlike most design tools, what you draw isn't a picture of an app, it IS the app. Every design maps 1:1 to real React and Tailwind code, so there's no separate "now let's rebuild this for production" step. It also integrates with Cursor and Claude Code via MCP, which matters if your team already lives in those tools, and it was Product Hunt's Launch of the Day on April 30, 2026.
Pricing: Free tier ($0/month, limited AI tokens, max 3 private files), Pro at $16/user/month billed annually (or $20/month billed monthly), and Enterprise on quote with SSO.
Strengths: a real-time AI agent sitting directly on the canvas, a genuine 1:1 mapping between what you design and the code that ships, and native integration with Cursor and Claude Code for teams already using AI coding tools.
Limits: it's still in public alpha, meaning the product is young and actively changing under you. It has far less production track record than an incumbent like Figma, and the free plan caps you at just 3 private files with limited AI tokens — you'll likely hit the Pro paywall fast if you use it seriously.
Best for: designers and product teams who want to go straight from canvas to production code without a rebuild step, and who are already using Cursor or Claude Code and want the design tool wired into that workflow.
Stitch vs Wonder at a glance
| Stitch | Wonder | |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Google Labs | Independent startup |
| Pricing | Free (350 designs/mo) | Free tier, then $16-20/user/mo |
| Input methods | Text, voice, sketch, screenshot | Canvas + AI agent, real-time |
| Code output | React + Tailwind | React + Tailwind, 1:1 mapping |
| Dev-tool integration | Figma export | MCP with Cursor, Claude Code |
| Maturity | Labs product, could be cut | Public alpha, young |
Verdict
Pick Stitch if you want to prototype for free, you're not precious about which company's ecosystem you're in, and you're fine treating it as a fast idea-to-mockup tool rather than a long-term platform bet. Pick Wonder if you want the design to genuinely be the production code with no rebuild step, your team already works inside Cursor or Claude Code, and you're willing to pay for a young but more collaboration-oriented tool. Neither is a mature, battle-tested platform yet — both are useful precisely because they're new and fast-moving, not despite it.