Penpot vs Figma: Open-Source Design 2026

TL;DR

Penpot and Figma should be compared through the exact workflow your team must run, not through a universal winner. Penpot provides an MPL-2.0 codebase, a documented self-hosting path, and standards-oriented design and handoff features. Figma is a managed product with its own collaboration, export, and Dev Mode interfaces. Make a conditional decision from required plugins, prototyping, collaboration, handoff, deployment control, file exchange, support, seat types, and current total cost, then test the team's workflow with representative files.

Key Takeaways

Penpot MPL-2.0 describes the codebase. Figma is not open source. Keep code license separate from file portability and service behavior.
Use same-day pricing for both products. Record seat type, billing cadence, team size, storage, feature tier, and plan name before you recompute a team scenario.
The canonical Penpot repository was not archived at access time. Repository status is not usability evidence or replacement proof.
Penpot 2.17.1 was the current official release at access time. Figma has a managed-product boundary rather than a directly comparable repository release.
The trial should test representative files. Do not assume component, token, prototype, plugin, variable, comment, or branching fidelity during exchange.

At-a-glance decision table

Decision factor	Penpot	Figma
Operating model	Managed service or documented self-hosting path	Managed product
Open-source status	Repository identifies MPL-2.0	Not open-source software
Developer handoff	Verify current standards-oriented inspect and handoff features	Verify the current Dev Mode interface and applicable seat or plan
File exchange	Test import and export with representative project files	Use current export documentation and test the receiving workflow
Pricing comparison	Use the current Penpot plan surface and self-host operating costs	Use the current Figma plan surface, seat types, and billing cadence
Decision proof	A trial covering design, review, handoff, export, and recovery	A trial covering the same team workflow and constraints

The table avoids feature checkmarks because design, prototyping, collaboration, developer handoff, export, self-hosting, plugins, mobile access, branching, variables, and enterprise controls are feature-specific and may be plan-specific. Verify each retained requirement from current product documentation.

Evidence cards

Pricing

The current pricing sources do not support carrying the old plan rows or savings arithmetic forward. Use the current Penpot pricing and Figma pricing pages as separate dated inputs. Record the exact seat type, billing cadence, team size, plan name, storage terms, and features needed by designers, developers, reviewers, and administrators.

For self-hosted Penpot, add infrastructure, backups, storage, email, upgrades, monitoring, support, security work, and operator time. Use those same-day inputs to recompute team scenario totals only after every value shares the same date and scope.

Repository and release identity

At access time, the canonical GitHub API identified penpot/penpot as not archived. That repository status is not evidence of users, teams, growth, usability, or proof that Penpot can replace Figma for a given organization.

The official latest-release API reported Penpot 2.17.1, published 2026-08-17, as non-draft and non-prerelease. Recheck that record when evaluating Penpot. Figma is evaluated here as a managed product, so this guide does not assign it a repository version or treat it as open-source software.

License and portability

Penpot's canonical repository metadata identifies MPL-2.0. Figma is not open source. The code license does not settle artifact portability: separate code license from file portability, import/export behavior, service metadata, and team workflow dependencies. Verify what the exact versions export and what the receiving tool reconstructs.

Current status

Penpot's repository was not archived at access time, release 2.17.1 was available, and the reviewed Penpot and Figma pricing pages were reachable. This is a point-in-time signal, not a guarantee of uptime, support, plan availability, data residency, performance, or feature behavior. Recheck the relevant surfaces when making a current selection.

Decision cards

The cards cover Penpot first and Figma second without assigning a rank.

1. Penpot

Evaluate Penpot when open-source code, deployment control, and a standards-oriented design and handoff model matter. Review the current design surface and technical guide, then test the actual component, layout, token, prototype, collaboration, comment, export, and developer handoff tasks your team performs.

A self-hosting decision also needs an operating plan. Document supported installation, storage and service dependencies, backups, restore testing, update procedure, monitoring, identity, email, security work, and the person responsible for the deployment.

2. Figma

Evaluate Figma through its current managed product, plan, seat, Dev Mode, export, collaboration, and support surfaces. Confirm which roles need which seat types and which workflows depend on Figma-specific behavior.

If a possible move is part of the decision, inventory plugins, prototypes, variables, comments, libraries, review processes, and external integrations before the trial. A managed service can reduce operator work, but it can also create file, plan, and workflow dependencies that need an explicit exit test.

Feature-specific workflow review

Design and layout

Penpot describes a design surface built around web standards. That is useful evidence for teams working on web interfaces, but it does not guarantee that an existing design system behaves identically after exchange. Build a representative page with nested components, responsive layout, typography, variables or tokens, and complex states in the candidate workflow.

Prototyping and review

Test the exact prototype interactions, review roles, permissions, comments, and approval steps the team uses. Do not infer feature parity from similar labels. Record anything that must be rebuilt or replaced.

Developer handoff

Use the current Penpot design surface and Figma Dev Mode guide to define the interfaces being compared. Have developers inspect the same representative screen, extract the needed values and assets, and implement one component. Compare the resulting code and review effort rather than relying on a general handoff claim.

File exchange

Use the vendor-specific interface documented for the exact direction of travel. The Figma export guide supports export decisions, while Penpot's current documentation supports its own design and deployment surfaces. These sources provide no fidelity guarantee for components, tokens, prototypes, plugins, variable modes, comments, or history.

Migration risk and trial plan

A useful trial is bounded and reversible:

Select representative files: a simple screen, a component library slice, a responsive layout, and a prototype.
Inventory fonts, assets, components, variables or tokens, plugins, comments, and external integrations.
Export or import through the documented vendor-specific interface.
Rebuild or verify the representative workflows in the target tool.
Have designers, developers, reviewers, and administrators complete their normal tasks.
Compare missing behavior, rework, permissions, support, and operating ownership.
Define the source of truth and rollback path before moving additional files.

Teams should benchmark representative files and deployment if performance or migration effort matters. No reproducible comparison in the cited sources establishes migration fidelity, cleanup time, server sizing, export load, data movement, or cost savings.

Maintenance burden

For managed use, review plan administration, seats, identity, data export, support, and service dependencies. For self-hosted Penpot, also review:

supported installation and update path;
database, object storage, email, and identity dependencies;
backup and restore tests;
monitoring and security notices;
resource use under the team's actual files and export workload;
ownership for incidents and upgrades.

Do not substitute an unsourced hardware minimum for a deployment test. Size from the supported architecture and measured workload.

Methodology

The comparison uses Penpot and Figma product, pricing, help, repository, license, and release sources accessed on 2026-08-24. Prices, release records, repository status, and help pages are point-in-time inputs.

The guide excludes frozen plan prices, plugin counts, unverified checkmarks, migration percentages, cleanup estimates, server-sizing numbers, and categorical winner language. Ratings and enrollment do not answer the comparison; a representative workflow trial does. Recheck volatile plan, release, and product details when making a current selection.