Overview Leaderboard Methodology
Industry Report

Wireframing Tools

Applications focused on quick low-fidelity layout and structure creation for user interfaces, enabling rapid ideation and information-architecture testing.

Brands tracked: 33
Brands analyzed: 33
Last updated: 2026-04-22
Model: OpenAI GPT-5
Prompts: 259
Total responses: 1,322
Top Brand Overall?
Figma
95/100

Highest overall AI Visibility Score in this industry.

LBA Leader?
Figma
86

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 Wireframing Tools

Figma and Balsamiq together dominate AI responses for Wireframing Tools. Both brands consistently surface unprompted, with the model treating them as the default answers for most category queries. Brands outside the top two face a structural disadvantage: users are usually given these two before the model even considers alternatives.

Brand Leaderboard All 33 Wireframing Tools 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
 86
100
100
95
2
Balsamiq
balsamiq.com
 72
93
100
87
3
Whimsical
whimsical.com
 71
37
59
54
4
Miro
miro.com
 83
40
38
50
5
Sketch
sketch.com
 72
23
56
45
6
Axure
axure.com
 77
24
47
44
7
Adobe
adobe.com
 82
5
41
26
8
Penpot
penpot.app
 65
13
17
24
9
Lucidchart
lucid.co
 83
4
27
20
10
Moqups
moqups.com
 57
7
16
18
11
Justinmind
justinmind.com
 60
1
12
10
12
UXPin
uxpin.com
 75
1
13
8
13
Uizard
uizard.io
 71
1
8
7
14
Framer
framer.com
 76
0
14
2
15
MockFlow
mockflow.com
 54
0
20
2
16
I
InVision
invisionwfm.com
 65
0
1
1
17
Marvel
marvelapp.com
 80
0
0
1
18
Mockplus
mockplus.com
 59
0
0
1
19
Pencil Project
pencil.evolus.vn
 54
0
0
1
20
Visily
visily.ai
 40
0
2
1
21
wireframe.cc
wireframe.cc
 55
0
3
1
22
Cacoo
cacoo.com
 61
0
0
0
23
Fluid UI
fluidui.com
 60
0
0
0
24
Frame0
frame0.app
 10
0
0
0
25
Gliffy
gliffy.com
 50
0
0
0
26
H
HotGloo
hotgloo.com
 33
0
0
0
27
I
iPlotz
iplotz.com
 32
0
0
0
28
Mockingbird
gomockingbird.com
 46
0
0
0
29
NinjaMock
ninjamock.com
 0
0
0
0
30
OmniFocus
omnigroup.com
 58
0
0
0
31
Pidoco
pidoco.com
 47
0
0
0
32
Proto.io
proto.io
 75
0
0
0
33
Wireflow
wireflow.co
 8
0
0
0

How is this calculated? Methodology

Every brand in this leaderboard is scored against the same set of 259 shared Wireframing Tools 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 259 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 →