This Is Insane... The Google Stitch VS Claude Design Debate Is Finally Over

Gemini has been the top model when it comes to design despite not being on par in other areas, especially with its design tool, Stitch, which we've used multiple times in our workflows. This got even better when Stitch released its 2.0 update with multiple new features, pulling it even further ahead. But Anthropic also stepped up and entered the design space with the release of Opus 4.7 and Claude Design, which made such an impact that people started calling it the end of Figma. But the real question is which one is actually better. So, in order to settle this, we're putting them to the test across multiple categories, and by the end, you'll know which one earns the spot in your workflow. Both Claude Design and Google Stitch have a lot of features that set them apart from each other. Claude Design was released alongside Opus 4.7, and it rapidly gained popularity for being the Figma killer because of its interactive features. The model itself got really better at design, and along with their design tool, their designs improved a lot. Google Stitch on the other hand has been around for a while and it wasn't that good until Google released Gemini 3, the model that's insanely better at design as compared to all other models. So combined with Stitch, the designs improved significantly. Now let's look at where each one actually pulls ahead. Claude Design has this feature where you can create a presentation using its features and write speaker notes inside it as well. But Stitch doesn't have anything like this because Stitch is UI only and doesn't provide any feature for other designs besides mobile and web interfaces. In Claude design, you can also reference your other projects that you want the design to follow by connecting your GitHub repo, which basically lets Claude import the design styles from it and create the next designs on top of it. Stitch handles this a bit differently. It uses design systems for the same task where you can copy the design system from other websites that are hosted just by providing the link to it in stitch and from there it imports the exact style and creates a system that gets used in later designs. When it comes to making changes, claude design lets you reprompt but you can also click directly on the area where you want changes and it reflects on your design. You can just comment directly on anything that you want differently and then it starts applying the changes directly on it. You can pile up the comments and send them to Claude altogether. Stitch goes the other way here. You can't make changes directly on it except for changing text. So if you want any change like color or font size, you have to add a comment on the area you select or annotate it and then send the comment to Gemini for it to incorporate your changes. Voice input is another split. Claw design lets you use your voice to type in the prompt instead of typing. But this is a point where Stitch wins because the voice canvas feature in Stitch is basically a live conversation you have with the model where you tell it all about the design you want to create and it asks questions relating to the design and creates the design for you all happening conversationally. Stitch also has a live preview feature in a separate pane where you can see how your design looks on desktop, mobile and tablet and interact with the design directly. Claude design doesn't have this preview feature separately. Instead, it displays the UI on the same pane where you can interact with elements directly instead of going to another preview screen. But you cannot check it for responsiveness like you can with Google Stitch. Claw design is also made for working with teams. So, it lets you share a project with multiple permissions like editing and commenting permissions separately which Stitch does not have. In Stitch, you can just share the project and let everyone work on it instead of having separate permissions like claude design. So despite the fact that Stitch is a much more mature project and Claude Design is a project that was just released recently, we would give points to Claude Design on the features. Claude Design is a newer product that is only available in Claude's Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans. Stitch on the other hand is available for free regardless of the plan and it just uses a credit system for keeping track of usage. So in terms of how usable they are, Stitch offers way more credits. It allows 400 daily design credits and 15 daily redesign credits. So you get a lot of credits for use even in one day and the monthly credits are even more. Normally one simple design costs three credits and can vary with complexity as well as the number of generations. So you'll be able to get a lot of designs out of it. Claude design has separate limits that span a week. This limit doesn't contribute to your other cla code limits. So you can freely use other cla features even if the design limits end. But as we talked about in the previous video, this limit is practically unusable because it doesn't let you experiment freely and will run out before you can use it for any substantial building. And this is even worse if you are on the pro plan because that just lets you experiment with a few designs before it runs out. So if you actually want to get something out of Claw Design, you would need to switch to their max plans. So comparing the costs of them both, Stitch is a clear winner by a far margin because at least it lets you experiment with designs which Claude Design doesn't. We tested both tools on the same prompt with a brief about the website style and the sections we wanted. Claude design created the to-dos like Claude code usually does and started working. And while Claude design was taking its time, we gave the exact same prompt to Google Stitch. The first thing Stitch did was create the design system, visualizing everything from colors to typography, icons and buttons. Even before Claude Design finished, Stitch was done. It built a landing page using the exact same style from its design system with complete balance between the main and accent colors. Claude design took a lot more time and after it finished, it started working through verification steps. Each part of Claw Design's work was interactive, unlike Stitch's static page. On its first run, it offered us the option to decide between the colors for accents and the main theme, so we could make tiny changes ourselves instead of reprompting. On a design quality test, we would give Google Stitch the points because its design was way better than the others. Stitch creatively used the color palette to match the style and fit the app's mood. While Claude Design's choice felt generic and lacked depth. Also, in terms of speed, Stitch also wins here because Claude Design takes way too long on each design. Whenever Claude Design needs to add images, it creates SVGs and integrates them into the design. Unless you provide assets of your own, it relies on SVG generation entirely. Google on the other hand has nano banana its own image generation model. So Stitch integrates it directly into the product and even if you don't tell it explicitly it uses image generation for all the sections in the design and the results get much better. No matter how high quality SVGs can get, they can't compete with an image model. So in this situation, Google Stitch is a clear winner. Stitch isn't really known for animations because its sole focus is on the design, but we still tried to see how it would handle them. It did try to add some but the animations weren't visible directly and could only be previewed in a separate tab and it only generated the scroll reveal on one section of the page. But when we gave the same task to claw design, it added multiple animations like a marquee below the hero section. The scroll reveal was also added, but it was way more coordinated and properly applied to each component, not just the hero section. Claw design is way better at animations than Stitch because it uses popular libraries like shaders and is able to create much more interactive animations that change behavior with mouse movement and clicks. So, in terms of animations, Claw Design is a clear winner. Also, if you are enjoying our content, consider pressing the hype button because it helps us create more content like this and reach out to more people. To test how well each one understood the app and handled changes, we asked them to create signup and login pages on top of the existing app. Stitch completed the design first, used the same design system for each page, and implemented the same header and footer on each one. We could view how they flowed with the prototype feature and see how each button connected to the other. Claude Design's implementation fit the app's idea more, and it understood what was needed better. It creatively built the login page and on the signup page, it even went a step ahead and implemented multiple styles of accounts. We also wanted to see how well each one incorporated changes. In claw design, we just added comments and sent them together and it started implementing them. On Stitch, we had to annotate the areas where we wanted changes, but the change wasn't exactly what we wanted. It just added a footer in the wrong place right after the quotes, which was weird. Overall, iterating with Stitch isn't friendly because for each change requested, it creates a new screen and at one point the screens become too cluttered. Claw design is a much better experience because changes reflect directly on the design and since it understands the app, it properly implements them without straying from the style. So, in terms of iterating on the design, claw design is clearly the better way. Each tool has its own design system. For claw design, a design system identifies your brand because this tool is meant for teams working on brand kits. You can add a description of it along with fonts, logos, assets, and everything else. And it creates a complete system that represents your brand's style. For Stitch, the design system is a file that doesn't identify a brand, but instead represents a particular design. This file isn't limited to Stitch. You can export it and use it in any agent, and it will be understood and implemented directly. As we mentioned previously, you can import design systems from other websites or create your own. Stitch has open- sourced the design.md file which contains npm commands for installation and proper formatting. Each design system serves a different purpose, but we prefer Google's because it allows cross-platform switching easily and doesn't lock you into stitch. Now that we have tested the designs, it is time to talk about how the handoff from design to code looks for each. As we previously mentioned, Claude design offers more export options with permission control. It lets you export as PDF slides and even export to Canva so you can further continue your designs there. But the handoff pattern we mostly use is the handoff toclude code because that's where we develop our apps the most. So with a copy of a single prompt and pasting that inside claude code, it will copy the design and implement it in the app. Google Stitch on the other hand has way better handoff patterns. Stitch has an MCP through which you can connect it to your coding agent and let it send prompts to Stitch to create designs and pull designs from it to implement them in the app. Claude Design doesn't have any MCP integration. So, we like Stitch's MCP because it works the other way around, meaning coding agents can prompt it in Stitch tailored language and we don't have to worry about proper prompting and still get the designs we want. Stitch also lets you export as zip code, but you have other options as well. You can either export it to Google AI Studio where you can build your app further using the studio's resources and Firebase integrated directly in the app or you could directly export it to Figma so you can work with other people there. We use the MCP export the most because with this integration we don't have to worry about the handoff and coding agents handle it themselves easily. It also lets you export as a PRD which you can hand off to other people or coding agents letting them implement the app easily without any issue. So, in terms of handoff style, Stitch is a clear winner. That brings us to the end of this video. If you'd like to support the channel and help us keep making videos like this, you can do so by using the super thanks button below. As always, thank you for watching and I'll see you in the next one.