In this article
Title
Framer has become the go-to builder for designers who want to ship polished, animation-first websites without a separate development phase. Its AI-powered site generation, Figma-like visual editor, and industry-leading animations make it the fastest path from concept to a polished, published website — and for agencies doing brand sites, landing pages, and portfolios, that speed is a genuine competitive advantage.
The client feedback process around those sites, however, doesn't move as fast. Most feedback tools were built for standard HTML pages. Framer sites use custom interactions, scroll-driven animations, and motion effects that many tools either break or fail to render entirely. A client commenting on a degraded preview isn't giving you useful feedback — they're reacting to something that doesn't represent your work.
This post is specifically about feedback on live Framer sites. Not prototypes, not static screenshots — the real published site, with all the animations running, across every breakpoint.
Why client feedback on Framer sites is harder than it looks
Framer's strength is also the problem. The interaction and animation capabilities are incredibly smooth, and it's one of the few tools where the final output actually feels production-quality without needing a developer — but those same animations and interactions are exactly what breaks in most feedback tools.
Most visual feedback tools work by loading your site through their own server — a proxy. That works fine for simple HTML pages. Framer sites are more complex: custom scroll effects, component interactions, WebGL, and Framer-specific motion APIs don't always survive that proxy layer intact. The client ends up reviewing a version of your site where half the interactions don't fire, animations are missing, and the layout looks slightly wrong. They're not sure if what they're seeing is intentional or a bug. The feedback you get back reflects that confusion.
A few other things that make Framer client reviews specifically tricky:
Framer's staging URLs work differently. Pro users get a full staging environment on a .framer.app domain, password-protected for client review. Password-protected staging URLs break proxy-based feedback tools entirely — they can't load the page at all.
Framer clients are often non-technical. Framer is fantastic for fast landing pages, brand sites, and portfolios — the client base tends to be founders, brand managers, and marketing leads, not developers. A feedback tool that requires them to install a browser extension or create an account before leaving their first comment is a tool they'll quietly abandon in favour of sending a Loom.
Framer's built-in comments don't cover client review. Collaboration options include live cursors, simultaneous canvas editing, on-page content editing directly on the published site, and comment threads in context — but these are team-facing features inside the Framer editor, not a client-facing review layer. Your client isn't in Framer, and shouldn't be.
What Framer's built-in collaboration does and doesn't cover
Worth being specific about this before going further, because it's a common source of confusion.
Framer has genuine collaboration features. Team members can co-edit in real time on the canvas, leave comment threads on components, and view version history with one-click rollback. These are useful for internal team workflows.
What they don't cover: external client review. Clients can't access the Framer canvas. They can't leave feedback on the live published site from outside the tool. There's no shareable link that lets a client click on a section of the published site and leave a contextual comment without an account.
For client feedback specifically — which is the most time-consuming and friction-prone part of any web project — you need something external to Framer.
What to look for in a Framer feedback tool
Accurate rendering of Framer's live site. The tool needs to render your actual published Framer site — animations running, scroll effects firing, interactions working — not a simplified version of it. If the preview breaks Framer's motion, your client is reviewing the wrong thing.
No client login. Framer clients are typically non-technical. The feedback link should open in a browser and work immediately. No account creation, no extension install, no tutorial required.
Breakpoint coverage. Framer is built around responsive design. Framer makes it easy to create fully responsive websites that look great on any device, including tools for building and previewing your design at different screen sizes. Clients should be able to leave feedback at desktop, tablet, and mobile sizes — not just whatever screen they happen to be on.
Comment tracking. Every comment needs a status — open or resolved. When you fix something, mark it. The client should be able to see progress without a call.
Integration with your workflow. Feedback that lands in a separate tool inbox competes with everything else for your attention. Look for something that pushes comments to Slack, Notion, or wherever your tasks already live.
The tools worth using
Annot — best overall for Framer
Annot was built specifically with Framer (and Webflow) in mind. It's proxy-based — paste your public Framer URL, get a shareable review link, send it to your client. No install, no script tag, no configuration on the Framer side. Clients click anywhere on the live page to pin a comment. No account, no extension required. They can also switch between desktop, tablet, and mobile within the same review session — so feedback covers the full responsive build, not just the screen they happen to be on.
The critical difference for Framer sites is how Annot handles custom code and WebGL. It renders your live Framer site as-is — animations play, scroll effects fire, interactions work — rather than loading a degraded proxy version. Clients are commenting on the actual site you built, which produces better feedback and fewer "is this intentional?" questions.
Feedback syncs to Slack and Notion. An MCP integration connects it into AI-powered workflows — useful if you're using Claude Code or Cursor alongside Framer for custom component work. Comments are tracked with open and resolved statuses, so both you and the client can see what's been addressed.
The free plan covers one active project with one page and unlimited guest reviewers — enough to run a client review on a landing page. The Freelance plan at $9/month covers the full site across all pages with Slack integration. The Pro plan at $29/month adds three active projects and all integrations including MCP. Agency at $59/month is unlimited projects.
One limitation: proxy-based, so it doesn't support Framer's password-protected .framer.app staging URLs. If your workflow depends on password-protected staging, read on.
Setup: Paste a URL · Client login: Not required · Password-protected Framer staging: Not supported · Price: Free · from $9/month
Marker.io — for password-protected Framer staging
If your workflow uses Framer's password-protected .framer.app staging environment for client previews, Annot and other proxy tools won't load it. Marker.io is the practical solution here — it works via a browser extension that runs inside the reviewer's browser, which means it can access pages behind authentication.
The tradeoff is client friction. Reviewers need to create a Marker.io account before they can leave feedback, and they need to have the extension installed. For non-technical Framer clients — founders and brand managers who aren't used to installing browser extensions — this is a meaningful barrier. Worth testing with your specific clients before committing.
Pricing starts at $59/month for the Starter plan, with meaningful agency features starting at the Team plan ($199/month). It captures detailed technical metadata with every comment — browser, OS, screen resolution — which is more than most Framer client reviews need, but useful if you're also doing bug tracking on complex Framer component builds.
Setup: Browser extension · Client login: Account required · Password-protected Framer staging: Yes · Price: From $59/month
Huddlekit — for teams that want side-by-side testing built in
Huddlekit is proxy-based like Annot and works on public Framer URLs without any install. Its standout feature for Framer teams is side-by-side responsive preview — you can compare desktop, tablet, and mobile simultaneously in one canvas, which is particularly useful when reviewing a Framer site's responsive behaviour across breakpoints. It also includes a built-in CSS inspection mode and a Kanban task board.
Worth testing if you want responsive QA and task management in one tool and don't already have a PM system. Proxy-based so it also won't work on password-protected Framer staging. Free plan available, Pro starts at $19/month.
Setup: Paste a URL · Client login: Not required · Password-protected Framer staging: Not supported · Price: Free · from $19/month
Pastel — basic option for simple reviews
Pastel follows the same paste-a-URL approach as Annot, but with a significantly thinner feature set. Free plan available with one active canvas. The limitations are real — a 72-hour commenting window on the free plan is short for most client review cycles, and it doesn't capture browser or viewport metadata. For a quick one-page Framer review on a public URL, it works. For anything more complex, you'll hit its limits.
Setup: Paste a URL · Client login: Not required · Password-protected Framer staging: Not supported · Price: Free · from $29/month
Quick comparison
Tool | Setup | Client login | Password-protected staging | Framer rendering | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Annot | Paste a URL | Not required | No | WebGL and custom code | Free · $9/mo+ |
Marker.io | Browser extension | Required | Yes | Accurate (via extension) | $59/mo+ |
Huddlekit | Paste a URL | Not required | No | Standard | Free · $19/mo+ |
Pastel | Paste a URL | Not required | No | Standard | Free · $29/mo+ |
The recommended Framer feedback workflow
Once you have a tool in place, the process is straightforward. Here's what works:
Publish to a custom domain or public Framer URL before sharing. Don't send the Framer editor link or an unpublished preview. Publish the site — even on a free Framer subdomain — so the client sees the real thing with all animations and interactions running. That's what they'll comment on.
Paste the URL into Annot and generate a review link. Takes 15 seconds. You get a shareable link that opens the live Framer site with a feedback layer on top.
Send the link with context, not just a URL. "Here's the site for review — click anywhere to leave a comment. I'll need feedback by [date]." One sentence of instruction is enough. Don't send a tutorial. If the tool needs a tutorial, it's the wrong tool.
Review by breakpoint. Ask your client to check mobile as well as desktop. Most Framer feedback arrives on desktop because that's what the client is sitting in front of. Reminding them explicitly produces more complete feedback before the first revision round.
Mark comments resolved as you work through them. Don't wait until the end. Resolving comments as you go gives the client visibility into progress and reduces the "did you get my feedback about X?" follow-up messages.
Share the same link for the second round. You don't need to generate a new link. The client revisits the same review link, sees what's been resolved, and leaves new comments where things still need work. One URL for the whole review cycle.
Frequently asked questions
Do any feedback tools work with Framer's password-protected staging? Most don't. Proxy-based tools — Annot, Huddlekit, Pastel — can't load password-protected URLs. Marker.io supports protected staging via a browser extension, but requires clients to create an account. If protected staging is part of your workflow, Marker.io is the practical option; just be aware of the client account requirement.
Does Framer have built-in client feedback tools? Framer has collaboration features for internal teams — live canvas co-editing, component comments, version history. These are for team members inside the Framer editor, not for external client review on the published site. For client-facing feedback on a live Framer site, you need an external tool.
Will website feedback tools break Framer animations? Some will. Proxy tools that don't handle custom JavaScript and WebGL correctly will render a degraded version of your Framer site where animations either don't play or behave incorrectly. Annot specifically supports custom code and WebGL, which makes it the most reliable option for animation-heavy Framer builds. It's worth testing any tool you're considering against one of your actual Framer sites before committing.
Can I use Annot on a free Framer subdomain? Yes. Annot works on any public URL — including free Framer subdomains like yoursite.framer.website. You don't need a custom domain to run a client review. Publish your Framer site to its free subdomain, paste the URL into Annot, and share the review link.
How is this different from sharing a Framer preview link directly? A Framer preview link shows the site but doesn't give clients a structured way to leave contextual feedback. They'd need to take a screenshot, annotate it, email it to you, and hope you understand which element they're referring to. A feedback tool like Annot adds a comment layer on top of the live site — clients click the exact thing they're talking about and leave a note there. The feedback arrives in context, tied to a specific element on a specific page at a specific breakpoint.
Is there a free feedback tool for Framer? Yes. Annot's free plan covers one active project with one page and unlimited guest reviewers — no credit card, no time limit on comments. That's enough to run a full client review on a single-page Framer site. Pastel also has a free plan (one active canvas, 72-hour commenting window). Huddlekit has a free plan with no time limit.
If you're also building on Webflow, we cover the best feedback tools for that stack in The best website feedback tools for Webflow teams in 2026. And for a broader comparison across all website annotation tools, see Website annotation tools compared.