Can Penpot be used without any licensing fees?

Yes. Penpot’s core platform is offered for free, and the pricing page lists a free tier; optional premium add‑ons are available for a fee (illustrative pricing only).

Does Figma provide SOC 2 or ISO 27001 compliance out‑of‑the‑box?

Yes. Figma’s Trust Center documents SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and GDPR certifications that are included for paid plans.

Can Penpot be self‑hosted?

Yes. The Penpot pricing page mentions self‑hosting options, allowing organizations to run the platform on their own infrastructure.

Figma vs Penpot for Small Teams – Open‑Source Compliance & Enterprise Feature Sets

Question: Should a small team use Figma or Penpot for collaborative UI/UX design, considering open-source compliance and enterprise feature sets?

Prepared by the ChoiceScore Research Desk · Editor-approved for the curated library · Reviewed July 28, 2026

It depends Choice Score: 78/100

Direct answer

Both tools are viable. Penpot is attractive for teams that prioritize open‑source compliance, zero licensing cost, and the ability to self‑host, while Figma offers richer enterprise‑grade features (AI‑driven workflows, built‑in compliance certifications, and a mature design‑system UI) at a subscription price.

Summary

Figma is a commercial, cloud‑native design suite that advertises AI‑driven workflows, a mature set of collaboration tools, and compliance certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR) documented in its Trust Center. Penpot is an open‑source design platform that offers a free core tier and optional paid add‑ons; its pricing page mentions self‑hosting options, making it attractive for teams with strict open‑source or data‑residency mandates. The trade‑off is that Penpot currently does not advertise AI‑assisted design or a full‑featured design‑system UI, which may require extra manual effort. For a small team, the decision hinges on three dimensions: (1) budget and licensing cost, (2) compliance and open‑source requirements, and (3) depth of required design tooling. The analysis below breaks each dimension into evidence from the supplied sources, illustrative calculations, and three plausible adoption scenarios. All numeric inputs are explicitly marked as illustrative and user‑adjustable.

Choice Score breakdown

Feature Completeness 82/100 — Figma leads on AI, design‑system tooling, and plugin ecosystem; Penpot covers core canvas and collaboration.
Cost Efficiency 75/100 — Penpot’s free core eliminates licensing fees; Figma incurs per‑editor subscription costs.
Compliance & Open‑Source Alignment 78/100 — Penpot satisfies open‑source and self‑hosting preferences; Figma provides third‑party certifications but remains proprietary.

Best for / Not best for

Best for

Teams with strict open‑source policies
Start‑ups or NGOs with limited design budgets
Organizations that can host their own infrastructure

Not best for

Teams that rely heavily on AI‑generated design or code
Organizations that need SOC 2/ISO 27001 certifications without self‑hosting effort
Design studios that require the most mature design‑system management and plugin ecosystem

Scenarios

Optimistic – Penpot Wins (33% likely)
The team self‑hosts Penpot on existing cloud infrastructure, incurs no licensing fees, and a community‑driven plugin emerges that provides AI‑assisted prototyping within six months. Compliance audits pass with minimal effort because the self‑hosted instance meets internal security standards. This probability is an illustrative, user-adjustable scenario weight, not an empirical forecast.
Likely – Mixed Adoption (33% likely)
The team uses Penpot for early‑stage wireframes and low‑fidelity work, then switches to Figma’s Professional plan for high‑fidelity prototypes and developer hand‑off. This hybrid approach keeps most design work open‑source while leveraging Figma’s advanced features where they matter most. This probability is an illustrative, user-adjustable scenario weight, not an empirical forecast.
Pessimistic – Figma Dominates (34% likely)
Penpot’s missing AI‑assisted design and limited design‑system tooling slow the product timeline, prompting the team to migrate fully to Figma’s Organization plan for speed and compliance guarantees. The migration adds hidden switching costs (training, asset migration, and contract onboarding). This probability is an illustrative, user-adjustable scenario weight, not an empirical forecast.

Calculations

Metric	Result	Formula
Annual Cost – Figma Professional (5 editors, illustrative)	720 USD/year (illustrative)	monthly_price_per_editor × editors × 12
Annual Cost – Penpot Core + Premium Add‑ons (5 editors, illustrative)	1,200 USD/year (illustrative)	core_cost + (premium_price_per_editor × editors × 12)
Expected Compliance Breach Cost – SaaS vs Self‑Host (illustrative)	800 USD/year (illustrative)	(breach_probability × breach_impact) × compliance_factor

Pros & cons

Pros

Figma advertises AI‑driven design workflows and a suite of collaboration features (source: Figma homepage snippet).
Figma’s Trust Center documents SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and GDPR certifications that are included for paid plans (source: Figma Trust Center).
Penpot offers a free core tier and optional paid add‑ons, allowing teams to start without licensing fees (source: Penpot Pricing page).
Penpot can be self‑hosted, giving organizations direct control over data residency and infrastructure (source: Penpot Pricing page).
Both tools provide real‑time multi‑user collaboration, version history, and export to common design formats.

Cons

Penpot does not currently advertise AI‑assisted design or code generation, which may require more manual effort for rapid prototyping (inferred from Figma homepage’s AI focus).
Penpot’s design‑system management UI is less mature than Figma’s built‑in design‑system tooling, as highlighted in the Mantlr comparison article.
Self‑hosting Penpot adds operational overhead (infrastructure provisioning, security patching, and ongoing maintenance).

Assumptions

Figma Professional monthly price per editor (illustrative): 12 USD — Based on publicly listed pricing for the Professional tier; actual price may vary by region or volume discounts.
Penpot premium add‑on price per editor (illustrative): 20 USD — Derived from optional paid features referenced on the Penpot pricing page; exact pricing is not disclosed in the source.
Team size (editors) (illustrative): 5 — Typical small design team size for a startup or agency.
Annual breach probability for cloud SaaS (illustrative): 2 % — Industry‑average figure used for illustrative risk modeling.
Average financial impact of a data breach (illustrative): 50,000 USD — Commonly cited average cost for small‑to‑mid‑size firms; used only for illustrative calculations.
Compliance risk reduction factor for self‑hosting (illustrative): 0.8 — Assumes internal security controls lower breach impact by 20 % compared with a third‑party SaaS.
Illustrative scenario probability — Optimistic – Penpot Wins: 33 % — User‑adjustable modeling weight; not an empirical forecast.
Illustrative scenario probability — Likely – Mixed Adoption: 33 % — User‑adjustable modeling weight; not an empirical forecast.
Illustrative scenario probability — Pessimistic – Figma Dominates: 34 % — User‑adjustable modeling weight; not an empirical forecast.

Practical next steps

1. Identify compliance constraints (e.g., mandatory open‑source licensing, required certifications such as SOC 2 or ISO 27001).
2. Map the team size (number of regular designers/editors) to the pricing structures shown on the Figma pricing page and the Penpot pricing page (which lists a free tier and optional paid add‑ons).
3. Build a feature‑gap matrix using the Mantlr comparison article and the Figma plans‑and‑features documentation to see which required capabilities are native to each platform.
4. Evaluate internal capacity for self‑hosting Penpot: estimate infrastructure, security hardening, and ongoing maintenance effort.
5. Run a short pilot (2‑4 weeks) where a subset of the team uses each tool on comparable design tasks; collect quantitative metrics (time‑to‑prototype, iteration count, stakeholder feedback).
6. Combine pilot results with cost calculations and compliance mapping to produce a weighted score (feature completeness, cost efficiency, compliance alignment).
7. Make a final recommendation based on the weighted score and the strategic importance of open‑source compliance versus advanced AI features.

Methodology

The analysis combines publicly available pricing information from Figma’s pricing page, the Penpot pricing page (which indicates a free tier and optional paid add‑ons), compliance documentation from Figma’s Trust Center, and a feature‑comparison article from Mantlr. Where the source material does not provide concrete numbers (e.g., exact per‑editor pricing for Penpot premium features), illustrative assumptions are introduced and clearly labeled as user‑adjustable. Scenarios are built around realistic adoption pathways, and a weighted scoring matrix (feature completeness, cost efficiency, compliance alignment) guides the recommendation. All statements are either directly supported by a source title/snippet or flagged as illustrative assumptions.

Sources

Sources support specific claims; they do not replace our analysis. Read the research and source standards.

FAQ

Can Penpot be used without any licensing fees?: Yes. Penpot’s core platform is offered for free, and the pricing page lists a free tier; optional premium add‑ons are available for a fee (illustrative pricing only).
Does Figma provide SOC 2 or ISO 27001 compliance out‑of‑the‑box?: Yes. Figma’s Trust Center documents SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and GDPR certifications that are included for paid plans.
Can Penpot be self‑hosted?: Yes. The Penpot pricing page mentions self‑hosting options, allowing organizations to run the platform on their own infrastructure.

Related decisions

What are the security implications of using a cloud‑based design tool versus a self‑hosted solution?
How does AI‑assisted design in Figma compare to manual prototyping in open‑source tools?
Is there a free tier of Figma that supports unlimited collaborators?

Disclaimers

Cost calculations are based on publicly listed pricing and illustrative assumptions; actual prices may vary by region, volume discounts, or promotional offers.

Compliance risk estimates use industry‑average figures and should not replace a formal security audit tailored to your organization.