What are the disadvantages of Figma Sites?

Figma has stepped into the website builder arena with its new site creation feature, aiming to blend design and website publishing into a single, seamless workflow. This bold move is intended to streamline the process for designers and teams by reducing reliance on external tools and third-party integrations. But is Figma Sites a genuine innovation, or is it just another rushed product in the rapidly expanding no-code landscape?

Many early adopters and reviewers have voiced concerns: Is Figma’s new feature truly ready for professionals? Does its focus on convenience come at the cost of performance, flexibility, and accessibility? This review takes a critical look at Figma Sites, exploring both its advantages and limitations. By the end, you’ll have a clearer sense of whether Figma Sites deserves a place in your toolkit and how it measures up to the demands of professional workflows.

TL;DR Key Takeaways

• Figma now allows users to design and publish websites directly inside its interface, targeting the growing no-code website builder market.
• Released in open beta at Config 2025, Figma Sites is currently available on all paid plans, with a limited Starter version planned for future release.
• The tool supports responsive design and linking between pages, but lacks deep customization, such as true semantic HTML, CSS grid, or flexbox support.
• Significant technical and accessibility issues have been identified, including heavy use of <div> tags, redundant ARIA labels, and heavy JavaScript reliance—leading to SEO, performance, and usability problems.
• Custom-coded websites offer far greater flexibility, semantic structure, and design control than Figma Sites—making them the preferred choice for professional projects that demand more than the basics.
• Initial user reception is mixed, with many expressing frustration at the tool’s limited capabilities and a sense that it was rushed to market to catch up with competitors.

Website Creation in Figma: A Convenient but Limited Start

Figma’s new website creation tool aims to make life easier for designers and teams already familiar with its interface. The entire process—designing, previewing, and publishing—is contained within Figma, which should save time and eliminate the friction of switching between multiple apps. This approach appeals especially to those who want to keep everything in one place.

However, the tool’s limitations quickly become clear. While you can create responsive designs and link pages together, the ability to control the website’s underlying structure is severely lacking. There is no option to specify semantic HTML elements such as headings, navigation, or section tags—elements that are essential for creating accessible, search-engine-friendly websites. Without these, professional developers will find it difficult, if not impossible, to use Figma Sites for production-level work.

In addition, the absence of advanced layout tools like CSS grid and flexbox means users cannot build complex, adaptable layouts. The designs may look good in Figma, but turning them into real-world, flexible websites is far less straightforward. For now, Figma Sites is best suited for simple projects, prototypes, or one-page sites, rather than anything requiring robust customization or scalability.

Technical and Accessibility Challenges

A major area of concern is Figma Sites’ technical approach to website structure. The builder relies almost exclusively on generic <div> elements, rather than semantically appropriate HTML tags. This undermines the site’s accessibility and makes it harder for search engines to understand the content, which can negatively impact SEO and usability for everyone, especially users who depend on assistive technologies.

Accessibility problems don’t end there. The automatic addition of redundant ARIA labels can lead to repeated or confusing information for screen readers, causing frustration for visually impaired users. Instead of improving accessibility, these features can actually make the experience worse for some visitors.

Figma Sites also leans heavily on JavaScript for even the most basic interactions—such as hover effects and navigating between pages. This approach can hurt performance, leading to slower page load times and unpredictable behavior on different devices or browsers. For organizations that prioritize fast, accessible, and robust websites, these are significant drawbacks that should not be overlooked.

To become a serious contender, Figma Sites must address these technical shortcomings by embracing web standards and making accessibility and performance central to its development.

How Figma Sites Stacks Up Against Custom-Coded Websites

Figma Sites enters a landscape where custom-coded websites have long set the standard for flexibility, performance, and technical control. Custom coding allows developers and designers to craft sites with clean, semantic HTML, fully tailored structures, and optimized performance across devices. Every detail—from accessibility and SEO to advanced layout techniques and unique interactive features—can be handled with precision.

In contrast, while Figma Sites emphasizes convenience and rapid site creation, it currently lacks the depth and flexibility that custom-coded solutions provide. Its limited semantic structure, restricted customization options, and missing advanced layout features can be significant drawbacks for those looking to build anything beyond a basic landing page or prototype. For businesses and professionals with complex requirements or long-term growth in mind, these limitations often become barriers to achieving the level of quality and control that only custom development can offer.

Execution and User Perception

The initial response to Figma Sites has been cautious and, at times, critical. Many users appreciate the idea of handling design and publishing within a single platform, especially for rapid prototyping and simple internal sites. However, experienced web professionals are frustrated by the limited control, technical restrictions, and apparent lack of polish.

There is a perception that Figma Sites was released before it was fully ready, possibly to compete in the growing no-code movement rather than to set new industry standards. The tool’s reliance on JavaScript for essential functionality is seen as a shortcut that sacrifices performance and compatibility.

Unless Figma commits to significant improvements—especially in terms of semantic markup, accessibility, and layout flexibility—it risks alienating the very users it hopes to attract: professional designers and developers.

Conclusion

Figma Sites introduces an appealing workflow for quickly turning designs into simple websites, making it a convenient choice for straightforward projects or internal use. However, at this stage, its technical and accessibility limitations—as well as restrictions on flexibility and customization—are important to note.

Compared to a custom-coded website, Figma Sites currently offers less control over structure, performance, and advanced features. For businesses or creators with evolving requirements or a need for long-term scalability, it’s worth considering whether Figma Sites can truly meet those goals, or if a custom website may be better suited to support growth over time.