Codia vs image.to.design: Detailed Screenshot-to-Figma Comparison (2026)
If you searched "Codia vs image.to.design," you're choosing between the two most popular AI tools for converting screenshots and images into editable Figma designs. Both work; they have different strengths. This page breaks down the differences honestly so you can pick the right one.
We made Codia, so we're not unbiased. We've tried to be fair. Where image.to.design is stronger, we say so.
TL;DR
- Pick Codia if you need: batch conversion via API, downstream code generation, support for sources beyond screenshots (PSD, PDF, HTML, websites), output to multiple destinations beyond Figma (Sketch, PSD, JSON, code), or AI-agent / MCP integration.
- Pick image.to.design if you need: tight in-Figma plugin experience, broad image format ingestion (avif, webp, jpeg XL, jpeg 2000, raw), and you only ever convert to Figma.
Both are solid. Pick by what you do after the conversion.
Side-by-Side Feature Table
| Codia AI | image.to.design | |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Codia (codia.ai) | div Riots (divriots.com) |
| Primary delivery | Figma plugin + web app + API | Figma plugin |
| Source: PNG / JPG / WebP | ✅ | ✅ |
| Source: avif, jpeg XL, jpeg 2000, raw, tiff | Standard formats | ✅ Broad format support |
| Source: PSD | ✅ Native PSD-to-Figma | ❌ |
| Source: PDF | ✅ Multi-page | ❌ |
| Source: Live URL / HTML | ✅ | ❌ (sister product html.to.design) |
| Output: Figma layers | ✅ | ✅ |
| Output: PSD | ✅ | ❌ |
| Output: Sketch | ✅ | ❌ |
| Output: code (React, Vue, Flutter, SwiftUI...) | ✅ Codia Code | ❌ |
| Output: JSON / Visual Struct API | ✅ | ❌ |
| Auto Layout in output | ✅ | ✅ |
| Smart layer naming | ✅ | ✅ |
| Component recognition | ✅ | ✅ |
| Batch / API access | ✅ Up to 1,000 images/batch | ❌ |
| MCP / AI-agent integration | ✅ Visual Struct API | ❌ |
| Free tier | ✅ | ✅ (credit-based) |
| Enterprise security review / DPA | ✅ | Check vendor |
Where Codia Is Stronger
1. Sources beyond screenshots
If your work involves PSDs (legacy archive migrations), PDFs (sales decks, reports, white papers), or live URLs (competitor analysis, redesign projects), Codia handles them with the same conversion engine. image.to.design focuses on image inputs and points users to its sister product html.to.design for HTML.
If your team's work is "screenshots only, into Figma only," this difference doesn't matter. If you're doing migration projects across multiple source formats, it matters a lot.
2. Outputs beyond Figma
Codia Code generates React, Vue, HTML/CSS, Tailwind, Flutter, SwiftUI, Jetpack Compose, and React Native from converted designs. The Visual Struct API returns structured JSON for downstream tooling. Sketch and PSD exports are also available.
image.to.design exports to Figma. If you'll never need anything else, that's fine. If your work flows downstream into code or other tools, Codia's pipeline saves the second-tool integration step.
3. Batch / API for migrations
Codia's Visual Struct API handles up to 1,000 images per batch with webhook callbacks. For agency rebuilds, design system audits, and legacy library migrations, this is the difference between "possible" and "not possible."
image.to.design is plugin-first. Conversion is interactive, one image at a time.
4. AI agent / MCP workflows
Codia generates Figma files structured for the Figma MCP server — Variables, Auto Layout, named components — so AI coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, Windsurf) can consume them properly. image.to.design produces good Figma files but doesn't market this integration explicitly.
Where image.to.design Is Stronger
1. Format breadth on the input side
image.to.design accepts an unusually broad set of image formats: avif, webp, jpeg XL, jpeg 2000, png, tiff, svg, raw, and more. If your team works with non-standard image formats from professional photography or archive workflows, this is a real advantage.
Codia accepts the standard formats (PNG, JPG, WebP, GIF, SVG, PDF) — covers ~99% of UI cases, but not every format.
2. In-Figma plugin polish
image.to.design has been iterating on its Figma plugin UX since the early days. Many designers find the in-plugin experience particularly slick.
Codia's Figma plugin is also polished and has more frequent updates, but if you're a designer who never leaves Figma, image.to.design is built specifically for that workflow.
3. Sister product family
div Riots ships a family of *.to.design plugins — html.to.design, anything.to.design, image.to.design — that all live in the same plugin shell. If you've already adopted the family for one purpose, adding more is friction-free.
What's Genuinely a Tie
- Output quality on clean UI screenshots. Both tools produce solid editable Figma files for typical web and mobile UI. We've tested both extensively. The 5–10% delta on either side comes down to source quality and specific UI patterns, not the underlying tool.
- Auto Layout coverage. Both apply Auto Layout to recognized patterns. Both miss the same edge cases (tables with merged cells, deeply nested overlays).
- OCR accuracy. Both rely on similar OCR foundations. Both struggle on the same hard cases (very small text, decorative typography).
- Free tier generosity. Both offer enough free credits to evaluate the tool.
Pricing (as of mid-2026)
Both tools price on a credit / quota model. Both have free tiers. For up-to-date pricing, check each vendor's site:
- Codia pricing: codia.ai/pricing
- image.to.design pricing: check the plugin page in Figma Community or div Riots' site
The pricing models are similar enough that this rarely tips the decision. Pick by the feature fit above, then check pricing fits your budget.
Decision Framework
Walk through these questions in order:
- Will the converted file ever leave Figma? If yes (code generation, PSD export, Sketch handoff, JSON for tooling) — Codia.
- Will you batch-process 100+ images at a time? If yes — Codia.
- Do you work with PSD, PDF, or live URLs as source files? If yes — Codia.
- Do you use AI coding agents (Cursor, Claude Code, Windsurf) on top of Figma? If yes — Codia (better MCP fit).
- Do you need broad image format support (avif, jpeg XL, raw)? If yes — image.to.design.
- Is your work 100% inside Figma, screenshot-only, designer-led? Either tool works fine. Try both free tiers.
Honest Caveats
- We made Codia. The comparison above is what we believe is accurate today, but image.to.design ships features regularly and the gap on any specific item may close.
- For your specific UI patterns (your design system, your level of complexity), the only real test is to convert 5–10 representative screens with both tools and compare. Both have free tiers explicitly to enable that.
- Quality differences on individual screens are often source-quality artifacts, not tool differences. Re-running with a cleaner source frequently changes the answer.
When to Use Both
Some teams use both. Codia for batch / migration / cross-format work, image.to.design for daily in-Figma conversions. Nothing prevents this; the conversion happens at the file level so the tools don't conflict.
FAQ
Is image.to.design the same as html.to.design?
No, but they're from the same company (div Riots). image.to.design converts images to Figma; html.to.design converts HTML / live URLs to Figma. Both share the *.to.design family branding.
Does Codia have an in-Figma plugin?
Yes — install Codia AI Design from Figma Community.
Which tool is "more accurate"?
On clean UI screenshots, neither tool is consistently more accurate than the other. The 5–10% delta on any specific image usually depends on source quality, not the tool. Run a paid trial with your real UI to settle it for your case.
Can I migrate from one to the other?
Yes — the output is standard Figma, so you can switch tools without losing prior work.
What about Banani, Refore, UXMagic, and other competitors?
Worth evaluating if Codia and image.to.design don't fit. We compare them in Screenshot to Figma: The Complete Guide (4-tool table).