Compare/Adobe Firefly Video 2.0 vs Figma AI Make Prototype

AI tool comparison

Adobe Firefly Video 2.0 vs Figma AI Make Prototype

Which one should you ship with? Here is the side-by-side panel verdict, pricing read, reviewer split, and community vote comparison.

A

Design & Creative

Adobe Firefly Video 2.0

Scene continuation and inpainting for AI video, baked into Premiere Pro

Ship

100%

Panel ship

Community

Free

Entry

Adobe Firefly Video 2.0 adds scene continuation — seamlessly extending generated video clips — and frame-level inpainting that lets editors remove or replace objects in motion. Both features are live inside Premiere Pro and the standalone Firefly web app. It's Adobe's clearest move yet toward making generative video a native part of the professional editing workflow rather than a bolt-on.

F

Design & Creative

Figma AI Make Prototype

One click turns static Figma designs into click-through prototypes

Ship

100%

Panel ship

Community

Free

Entry

Figma AI's Make Prototype feature analyzes static frames in a Figma file and automatically generates click-through interactions and micro-animations without manual wiring. It reduces prototype setup from hours of tedious connection-drawing to a single invocation, letting designers validate flows faster. The feature lives inside Figma's existing editor, so there's no new tool to adopt — it augments the workflow designers already use.

Decision
Adobe Firefly Video 2.0
Figma AI Make Prototype
Panel verdict
Ship · 4 ship / 0 skip
Ship · 4 ship / 0 skip
Community
No community votes yet
No community votes yet
Pricing
Included in Adobe Creative Cloud ($54.99/mo) / Firefly web app on generative credits (free tier available, credits replenish monthly)
Included in Figma paid plans: Starter free / Professional $16/editor/mo / Organization $45/editor/mo / Enterprise $75/editor/mo
Best for
Scene continuation and inpainting for AI video, baked into Premiere Pro
One click turns static Figma designs into click-through prototypes
Category
Design & Creative
Design & Creative

Reviewer scorecard

Creator
82/100 · ship

Scene continuation is the first generative video feature that doesn't feel like a party trick — you can actually extend a shot that ends half a second too early without the cut being obvious, which is a real problem editors hit constantly. The inpainting on moving objects is genuinely impressive when the motion is simple (static background, clear subject boundary), but it degrades fast on complex motion blur or crowded frames, and Adobe isn't hiding that. The output doesn't have a consistent 'Firefly fingerprint' the way early image Firefly did — skin tones and motion grain are calibrated enough that you'd have to know what to look for, which is the right outcome for a professional tool.

78/100 · ship

The output is not cinematic — you're getting sensible default easing curves and standard dissolve transitions, not bespoke motion direction. But that's actually the right call: the taste layer here is deliberately minimal, leaving the designer in control of anything that matters for brand expressiveness while automating the grunt work of wiring 40 frames together. The editing surface is the full Figma prototype panel, which means refinement is identical to hand-wiring, so there's no skill cliff when you need to fix something. The fingerprint is low: generated prototypes are indistinguishable from hand-built ones, which is the correct outcome for a tool like this — you want your design to be the thing with a signature, not the prototype scaffolding.

Skeptic
74/100 · ship

Direct competitors are Runway Gen-3, Kling, and Sora's API — all of which have scene continuation in some form — but none of them are embedded in Premiere Pro's timeline where the actual professional editing work happens. That distribution advantage is real and not easily replicated. The scenario where this breaks is complex multi-object inpainting on handheld footage with motion blur, which Adobe's own demos quietly avoid. What kills this in 12 months isn't a competitor — it's Adobe's own generative credit pricing surviving contact with heavy professional users who will burn through monthly allotments on a single long-form project. If credits don't scale gracefully with CC plans, the power users who would drive adoption will route around it.

72/100 · ship

The direct competitor here is ProtoPie and the half-hour a senior designer currently spends wiring flows before a usability test — and against that bar, Make Prototype wins clearly for standard linear flows. Where it breaks is conditional logic: any prototype that branches on user input, persists state, or simulates API responses is still entirely manual, and that covers maybe 40% of real usability test scenarios. What kills this in 12 months isn't a competitor — it's scope creep from Figma's own roadmap; if they ship smart-animate improvements and variable-aware connections, this feature either grows into something genuinely powerful or gets quietly deprecated as a stepping stone. I'm shipping it because the 60% it handles well represents hours of saved work per week for a design team.

Founder
78/100 · ship

The buyer is every Creative Cloud subscriber who already pays $54.99/month — Adobe doesn't need to acquire anyone new, it needs to justify the renewal. Scene continuation and inpainting are exactly the kind of features that turn a 'do I still need this subscription' moment into a 'I can't work without this' moment, which is the only metric that matters for a $19B ARR subscription business. The moat here isn't the model — Runway and Kling have comparable or better raw generation quality — it's the workflow integration: your footage, your timeline, your color grades, no round-trip export. The risk is that generative credit costs become a hidden overage bill that erodes the all-in-one value prop, which Adobe has failed to price cleanly before with Firefly credits.

No panel take
PM
71/100 · ship

The job-to-be-done is precise: 'fix timing and object problems in footage without leaving my editing timeline,' and for that one job, this is now the most complete solution available to a Premiere Pro user. Onboarding is effectively zero for existing Premiere users — the features surface contextually in the timeline, which is the right call. The incompleteness problem is that inpainting still requires manual masking on complex moving subjects, meaning you need to keep After Effects open for anything beyond simple object removal, so it's not yet a full workflow replacement. The product has a clear opinion — generative tools should live where editors work, not in a separate app — and that opinion is correct.

75/100 · ship

The job-to-be-done is precise: 'wire up a prototype fast enough that I can test it today instead of tomorrow,' and Make Prototype nails that single job without trying to also be a motion design tool or a handoff tool. Onboarding is essentially zero — if you've used Figma's prototype panel before, you invoke this from a right-click or command bar and the connections appear; there's no configuration screen. The completeness question is the honest limitation: you can't fully switch off manual prototyping because anything involving conditionals or data still requires hand-wiring, so it's a time-saver within an existing workflow rather than a workflow replacement. The specific product decision that earns the ship is that the output writes back into Figma's native connection format rather than a proprietary AI layer — your prototype remains yours and is fully editable without touching the AI again.

Designer
No panel take
82/100 · ship

The interaction model here is exactly right: Make Prototype doesn't introduce a new surface or modal — it reads what's already on the canvas and adds connections back into the same noodle-and-arrow system Figma designers already know. That means the output is editable, not magic-boxed. The real craft decision that earns the ship is that it respects existing component and variant semantics rather than generating flat, dumb connections — hover states actually wire to their counterpart variant. My one pointed concern is error handling: when the AI misreads a layout ambiguity, the failure mode is silently wrong connections rather than a surfaced warning, which can torpedo a client demo if you don't sanity-check.

Weekly AI Tool Verdicts

Get the next comparison in your inbox

New AI tools ship daily. We compare them before you waste an afternoon.

Bookmarks

Loading bookmarks...

No bookmarks yet

Bookmark tools to save them for later