Add to ChromeHow they compare
Both tools target the same pain point: getting design intent from a live page into your AI coding agent. The differences come down to licensing, hosting, design control depth, and how change history is handled.
Feature-by-feature
| Feature | Design Mode | Stagewise |
|---|---|---|
| Visual editing of any live website | Yes — full design surface (typography, colour, layout, spacing, motion, effects) | Yes — developer-focused visual editing |
| MCP (Model Context Protocol) handoff to AI agents | Yes — Cloud, Local, and Self-hosted modes; eight MCP tools | Yes |
| Persistent change history (Changes tab) | Yes — searchable, filterable, exportable | Limited |
| Open source | Yes (MIT) | Check current licence |
| Price | Free forever | Check current pricing |
| Markdown / JSON export of the diff | Yes | Partial |
| Best fit for | Designers, developers, QA, PMs, content, indie hackers, agencies, vibe coders | Developers using AI coding agents |
When to pick Design Mode
- You want MIT open source with no licensing risk.
- You don't want to run your own relay — Cloud mode is hosted at mcp.designmode.app.
- You need a broader design control set (motion, effects, variants, contrast checker).
- You want persistent, searchable change history in a Changes tab.
- You want use-case-specific workflows beyond developer-focused editing (UI testing, copy edits, design system audits).
When to pick Stagewise
- You're already deep in Stagewise's ecosystem and tooling.
- Stagewise's specific UX matches your team's mental model better.
Honest take
Stagewise is genuinely good and was earlier to this space. If you're happy with it, stay with it. Design Mode's case is breadth: it covers personas (QA, PMs, content, design system maintenance) Stagewise doesn't centre.