Overview Leaderboard Methodology
Industry Report

Interaction Design Suites

Comprehensive products for designing and animating UI interactions and microinteractions, often including timelines, triggers, and component states.

Brands tracked: 33
Brands analyzed: 33
Last updated: 2026-04-22
Model: OpenAI GPT-5
Prompts: 263
Total responses: 1,330
Top Brand Overall?
Figma
93/100

Highest overall AI Visibility Score in this industry.

LBA Leader?
Adobe
85

Highest score on the LBA metric.

Authority Leader?
Figma
100

Highest score on the Authority metric.

TOM Leader?
Figma
100

Highest score on the TOM metric.

Figma is the default answer in AI responses for Interaction Design Suites

When users ask ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini about Interaction Design Suites, Figma is the brand that surfaces first - unprompted, consistently, and usually at the top of any list the model generates. Framer is a close second, but the gap between them is meaningful. If you're competing in this space and you're not in the top handful, you're effectively invisible to AI-driven discovery.

Brand Leaderboard All 33 Interaction Design Suites brands ranked

Ranked by overall AI Visibility Score (geometric mean of LBA, Authority, and TOM). Click any brand for the full report.

# Brand LBA Authority TOM Overall
1
Figma
figma.com
 81
100
100
93
2
Framer
framer.com
 82
72
92
82
3
ProtoPie
protopie.io
 74
44
85
65
4
Axure
axure.com
 77
42
70
61
5
Adobe
adobe.com
 85
9
58
36
6
Sketch
sketch.com
 80
15
30
33
7
UXPin
uxpin.com
 74
19
23
32
8
P
Principle
principleformac.com
 65
8
54
30
9
Balsamiq
balsamiq.com
 70
6
2
9
10
Penpot
penpot.app
 68
10
1
9
11
Anima
animaapp.com
 47
0
7
2
12
LottieFiles
lottiefiles.com
 72
0
14
2
13
Rive
rive.app
 75
0
13
2
14
Flinto
flinto.com
 55
0
5
1
15
I
InVision
invisionwfm.com
 69
0
4
1
16
Miro
miro.com
 81
0
3
1
17
Origami Studio
origami.design
 64
0
3
1
18
A
Antetype
antetype.com
 21
0
0
0
19
Atomic
atomic.io
 40
0
0
0
20
Jitter
jitter.video
 43
0
0
0
21
Justinmind
justinmind.com
 59
0
0
0
22
Marvel
marvelapp.com
 58
0
0
0
23
MockFlow
mockflow.com
 50
0
0
0
24
Mockplus
mockplus.com
 55
0
0
0
25
Moqups
moqups.com
 58
0
0
0
26
Pixso
pixso.net
 47
0
0
0
27
Play
createwithplay.com
 18
0
0
0
28
Proto.io
proto.io
 68
0
0
0
29
Quant-UX
quant-ux.com
 31
0
0
0
30
Spline
spline.design
 63
0
0
0
31
Tumult Hype
tumult.com
 64
0
0
0
32
UX-App
ux-app.com
 0
0
0
0
33
Visily
visily.ai
 46
0
0
0

How is this calculated? Methodology

Every brand in this leaderboard is scored against the same set of 263 shared Interaction Design Suites prompts. The same prompts, same model, same iterations. So differences in scores reflect actual differences in AI visibility, not differences in measurement.

Overall AI Visibility Score
Geometric mean of LBA, Authority and TOM: (LBA × Authority × TOM)^(1/3). Geometric mean is used so that any single weak metric pulls the overall score down, rather than being masked by strength elsewhere.
Shared industry prompts
For Authority and TOM, all brands in the industry are scored against the same 263 category prompts (e.g. "best SEO tools for agencies"). This makes brand-to-brand comparisons valid - everyone faces identical inputs. LBA prompts are per-brand because they ask brand-specific questions.
Latent Brand Association (LBA)
5 brand probes + 1 control prompt, each run 5 times in recall mode (no web search). LBA = quality × meta × stability × share × recognition × 100. Read the full LBA methodology →
LLM Authority
50 organic category prompts (discovery, comparison, problem and transactional intents), each run once in recall mode and once in retrieval mode. Score = frequency × log-decayed prominence × intent weight, then 50/50 averaged across the two modes. Read the full Authority methodology →
Top of Mind (TOM)
15 high-volume discovery prompts (sourced from Keywords Everywhere search-volume data), each run 5 times in pure recall mode (no web). Score = frequency × (0.5 + 0.5 × log-prominence), volume-weighted. Read the full TOM methodology →