You want to generate a UI kit. You've got two main approaches: Figma plugins that create design files, or standalone tools that generate code directly.
Both get you to a similar destination—a set of reusable UI components—but the path is different. Here's how to choose.
The Two Approaches
Figma Plugins (Design-First)
Plugins like UI Kit Generator, Anima, or Figma's built-in component tools create design assets inside Figma. You then export to code.
Workflow: Configure style → Generate Figma components → Design in Figma → Export code
Standalone Generators (Code-First)
Tools like the Bravura UI Kit Generator skip Figma entirely. You configure styles, and it outputs production-ready code.
Workflow: Configure style → Generate code → Use directly in project
Quick Comparison
| Aspect | Figma Plugins | Standalone Generators |
|---|---|---|
| Output | Figma files (then code export) | Code directly |
| Best for | Design teams, designer-developer handoff | Developers, solo founders |
| Customization | Visual (drag, resize, tweak) | Parameter-based (colors, spacing) |
| Steps to usable code | 3-5 (generate, design, export, clean up) | 1-2 (generate, use) |
| Requires Figma | Yes | No |
| Code quality | Variable (depends on export) | Consistent (purpose-built) |
When to Use Figma Plugins
Ideal For
- Teams with dedicated designers
- Complex visual customization needed
- Projects requiring stakeholder review
- Long-term design system maintenance
Not Great For
- Developers working solo
- Tight deadlines
- Projects without Figma
- Simple, standard UI needs
The reality: Figma plugins add a step between generation and usable code. If you have designers who will customize the generated components, that step adds value. If you just want code to ship, it's overhead.
When to Use Standalone Generators
Ideal For
- Developers building MVPs
- Solo founders
- Quick prototypes
- Standard UI patterns
Not Great For
- Highly custom visual design
- Designer-heavy teams
- Projects requiring Figma handoff
The reality: Standalone generators optimize for speed to working code. You sacrifice some visual tweaking ability for a much faster path to production.
The Code Quality Question
Figma-to-code exports have historically produced messy code. Absolute positioning everywhere, arbitrary class names, unnecessary wrappers.
Standalone generators, built specifically to output code, typically produce cleaner results:
- Semantic HTML
- Utility classes (Tailwind) or CSS modules
- Responsive by default
- Accessibility attributes included
Modern Figma plugins have improved, but there's still often a "clean up" step after export.
Hybrid Approach
Some teams use both:
- Generate code with a standalone tool
- Import to Figma (some tools support this)
- Customize visually for stakeholder review
- Sync changes back to code (tools like Anima)
This works but adds complexity. Only worth it for large teams with established design workflows.
Cost Comparison
| Tool Type | Typical Cost | What You Get |
|---|---|---|
| Figma (base) | Free-$15/mo | Design tool only |
| Figma + Premium Plugins | $20-50/mo | Generation + code export |
| Standalone Generator | $149-299 one-time | Direct code output |
Standalone generators often cost less long-term, especially with one-time pricing.
My Recommendation
For Developers / Solo Founders
Use a standalone code generator. Skip Figma unless you need stakeholder reviews. Your time is better spent on product, not design tool workflow.
For Design Teams
Use Figma plugins if your designers will actually customize the output. If they're just passing through to code anyway, consider standalone generators.
For Agencies
Depends on your clients. Some expect Figma files. Others just want working websites. Match your tooling to your client base.
Conclusion
Neither approach is universally better. The right choice depends on:
- Your role — Developer or designer?
- Your team — Solo or collaborative?
- Your timeline — Days or weeks?
- Your workflow — Code-first or design-first?
If you're reading a technical blog about UI kit generators, you're probably a developer. In that case: standalone generators will likely save you time.