Prompt-based UI generation is finally good enough to ship from—but not all tools give you equally clean, editable output. If you care about maintainable design systems and dev handoff, the structure underneath the pretty UI matters as much as the visuals on top.

This guide compares Figma Make (Figma’s native AI for creation) and v0 (Vercel’s AI-powered React UI generator) specifically on one question:

Which tool produces cleaner, more editable UI structures when generating components and pages from prompts?

We’ll break it down from both a designer and developer perspective, with concrete examples and practical recommendations.

---

Quick verdict: who wins on clean, editable structure?

If you just want the bottom line:

• For Figma-first teams (design → dev)

  • Figma Make wins for:
    • Cleaner Figma layer hierarchies
    • Auto Layout usage
    • Design system friendliness
  • Use it when: you want to stay in Figma, iterate visually, and then hand off to dev.

• For code-first teams (dev → design optional)

  • v0 wins for:
    • Cleaner React component structure
    • Reusable JSX abstraction
    • Shadcn/Tailwind patterns
  • Use it when: you prototype and ship directly from React, and Figma is optional or secondary.

• Hybrid workflow

  • Best combo right now:
    • Use v0 to generate robust React layouts and component APIs.
    • Mirror or recreate key flows in Figma (with Figma Make when useful) for collaboration, documentation, and UX iteration.

The deeper details below explain why.

---

How each tool works (so you know where structure comes from)

Before judging “clean structure,” it helps to understand what each tool is optimizing for.

Figma Make: AI inside your design canvas

• Where it lives: Inside Figma, working directly on frames, components, and styles.
• Output type: Figma layers—frames, groups, components, Auto Layout, text, icons, images.
• Primary user: Designers or hybrid designer–devs who think visually first.
• Goal: Get to a usable Figma mock or starting point faster with AI while staying compatible with the Figma ecosystem (variants, Auto Layout, tokens, etc.).

What it’s good at structurally

• Uses Auto Layout for most containers.
• Applies constraints for responsiveness.
• Often groups elements into logical chunks (header, content, sidebar).
• Can align with your existing design system components if you prompt it carefully.

---

v0: AI that writes front-end code

• Where it lives: Web app that outputs JSX/TSX, usually leveraging Next.js + Tailwind + shadcn/ui.
• Output type: React components and pages.
• Primary user: Developers, or designers comfortable reading/writing React.
• Goal: Generate production-adjacent UI code from prompts or sketches, with a bias toward modern React patterns.

What it’s good at structurally

• Generates modular React components.
• Uses composable UI primitives (buttons, inputs, cards) when prompted.
• Applies Tailwind utility classes in consistent patterns.
• Can iterate via prompt updates or direct code edits.

---

Criteria: what “clean, editable UI structure” actually means

To compare Figma Make vs v0 fairly, we’ll use seven criteria:

1. Hierarchy clarity
2. Componentization & reusability
3. Naming conventions
4. Responsiveness & layout logic
5. Design system alignment
6. Editability for iteration
7. Dev handoff quality

We’ll score each tool qualitatively and highlight patterns you’ll actually feel while working.

---

1. Hierarchy clarity

Figma Make

Strengths

• Frequently builds logical structures like:
  • App Shell / Header / Nav / Main / Sidebar / Footer
  • Within components: Card / Image / Text / CTA
• Uses nested frames with Auto Layout, which:
  • Makes aligning and spacing easy.
  • Allows whole sections to be moved or reused.

Weak spots

• Sometimes adds unnecessary wrapper frames (e.g., extra frames for a single text layer).
• Occasional deep nesting for simple layouts, which:
  • Makes the layer panel longer than necessary.
  • Can confuse new collaborators.

Net: Good but not perfect. You often want to do a quick cleanup pass on wrappers and useless nesting.

---

v0

Strengths

• UI structure shows up as JSX hierarchy, often like:

  <main className="...">
    <Header />
    <section>
      <Sidebar />
      <ContentArea>
        <CardList />
      </ContentArea>
    </section>
    <Footer />
  </main>
  

• Clean separation of:

  • Top-level layout (page shell)
  • Navigational components
  • Content regions

• Typically avoids “div soup” if you prompt it to use components.

Weak spots

• If under-specified, v0 can revert to many nested <div>s with long Tailwind chains.
• Some components are too page-specific instead of generic.

Net: Very clean when you ask for components by name; slightly messy if you just say “build a dashboard UI” without structural guidance.

---

2. Componentization & reusability

Figma Make

Component behavior

• Can generate elements that look like components, but whether they’re actually Figma components depends on the prompt and generation path.
• You may get:
  • Repeated card patterns as raw layers, not instances.
  • Buttons that are visually consistent but not linked to a Button master component.

Pros

• Once you convert them to components, the layout usually supports reuse well.
• Works reasonably with:
  • Component sets (variants)
  • Auto Layout-driven buttons and inputs

Cons

• Needs manual follow-up:
  • Converting to components
  • Hooking into existing design system

---

v0

Component behavior

• Designed around code reuse:
  • Button, Card, Navbar, Sidebar, etc.
  • Often encourages props-driven components.

Example:

function StatCard({ label, value, trend }: StatCardProps) {
  return (
    <Card>
      <CardHeader>
        <CardTitle>{label}</CardTitle>
      </CardHeader>
      <CardContent>
        <p>{value}</p>
        {trend && <TrendBadge trend={trend} />}
      </CardContent>
    </Card>
  )
}

Pros

• Easy to:
  • Reuse across pages
  • Extract further into shared libraries
  • Connect to data via props

Cons

• Occasionally bakes content too tightly into layout (e.g., text inline instead of props), which you’ll want to refactor.

Net: v0 is ahead here. It thinks in components by default, which is gold for long-term maintainability.

---

3. Naming conventions

Figma Make

Typical patterns

• Reasonable layer names like:
  • Header / Nav Links / Logo
  • Card / Title / Subtitle / CTA Button
• But sometimes:
  • Frame 123, Group 45 still appear.
  • Repeated components may not share naming patterns.

Best-case scenario

• If you prompt with specific names:
  • “Create a Primary Button component and a Secondary Button variant”
  • It tends to adopt those directly.

---

v0

Typical patterns

• Component names are usually descriptive:
  • DashboardHeader, SidebarNav, UserTable, StatCard
• Functions and variables map well to their roles.

Risks

• Without guidance, you can get generic names like Component, Layout, Section, which hurt readability over time.

Tip

• Prompt like:
  • “Create DashboardLayout, TopNav, SideNav, OverviewCard, and RecentActivityList components, each in their own function.”

Net: v0 edges out Figma Make on consistent, meaningful naming when you’re explicit in your prompt.

---

4. Responsiveness & layout logic

Figma Make

Strengths

• Heavy use of:
  • Auto Layout direction (horizontal/vertical)
  • Gaps, padding, alignment
  • Constraints (e.g., Stick to top, Left & right, Center)

This gives you:

• Easy resizing directly in the canvas.
• Fast iteration for different breakpoints by duplicating frames and tweaking.

Limitations

• True responsive behavior is conceptual—you’re simulating breakpoints, not enforcing them.
• More work is needed to fully specify mobile + tablet + desktop variants.

---

v0

Strengths

• Uses:
  • Tailwind responsive classes (md:, lg:, xl:)
  • Flex and grid utilities
• Results in layouts that actually respond to viewport size in the browser.

Example:

<div className="grid grid-cols-1 gap-4 md:grid-cols-3">
  {/* Cards */}
</div>

Limitations

• Layout logic is only as good as your prompt:
  • “Responsive dashboard with a collapsible sidebar and content area that stacks on mobile.”
• Sometimes overly specific spacing that you may want to refactor into tokens.

Net: For real responsiveness, v0 is stronger. Figma Make is excellent for planning responsive behavior, not enforcing it.

---

5. Design system alignment

Figma Make

Advantages

• Native to Figma, so in theory:
  • Can reuse your existing components.
  • Can apply styles (color, text, effect styles).
• With specific prompts:
  • “Use our existing Button/Primary component”
  • You can guide Make to snap to your system.

Reality

• Still hit-or-miss:
  • Sometimes uses your variables and components.
  • Sometimes creates new, slightly off variants (e.g., off by 2px or using a new color).

---

v0

Advantages

• Works seamlessly with:
  • Tailwind tokens
  • shadcn/ui design system
  • Your own component library if you show it the pattern

Example prompt:

“Use the existing Button and Card components from shadcn/ui. Don’t inline styles; rely on our design system primitives.”

Challenges

• If you’re not strict in your prompt:
  • It may create new inline Tailwind classes that don’t map to your intended token system.
• Designers may find it harder to maintain a 1:1 match between Figma and code, since v0 isn’t aware of your Figma styles.

Net:

• Figma Make: better at visual alignment with an existing Figma design system.
• v0: better at code alignment with an existing React/Tailwind/shadcn system.

---

6. Editability for iteration

Figma Make

Editing experience

• Pros:
  • Drag, resize, swap components visually.
  • Auto Layout makes spacing and alignment edits low friction.
  • Text and imagery easy to swap for copy and content design.
• Cons:
  • Large generated layouts can have noisy layers.
  • You’ll often want an initial “clean up” pass:
    • Remove redundant frames.
    • Promote frequently reused patterns into proper components.

Best use

• Rapid UI brainstorming.
• Early-stage feature layouts.
• UX flows and microcopy iteration.

---

v0

Editing experience

• Pros:
  • Immediate code-level control.
  • Easy to refactor:
    • Extract subcomponents.
    • Introduce props.
    • Remove duplicated markup.
  • Integrates with your existing tooling (VS Code, linting, testing).
• Cons:
  • Designers and non-code stakeholders are less comfortable making edits.
  • Changes to structure require code literacy.

Best use

• Once direction is clear and you’re aiming for shippable UI.
• When you want prompt + manual coding synergy:
  • “Refine this sidebar to include collapsible sections.”
  • Then tweak small details in code.

---

7. Dev handoff quality

Figma Make → dev

What devs get

• A visual spec with:
  • Clear layout.
  • Color and type tokens (if your system is set up).
  • Component usage (if you enforce it).

Pain points

• Devs still need to:
  • Translate Auto Layout logic into CSS/Tailwind.
  • Decide on component boundaries in code.
  • Clean up any inconsistent spacing, typography, or radii.

Best case

• When your team has strong Figma → code mapping conventions:
  • Each Figma component maps to a React component.
  • Figma tokens map to design tokens in code.

---

v0 → dev

What devs get

• Running code that can be:
  • Cleaned up.
  • Hooked to APIs.
  • Put under test and version control.

Pain points

• May need design review and alignment to visual standards.
• If you plan to reflect changes back into Figma, you’ll manually recreate or sync.

Best case

• Teams comfortable iterating design inside code, with Figma used more for concept and communication than pixel-perfect spec.

---

Practical prompts that yield cleaner structure

To get the best from both tools, how you prompt matters.

Cleaner structure with Figma Make

Use prompts like:

• “Create a dashboard layout with:
  • A top navigation bar,
  • A left sidebar,
  • A main content area with a 3-column stats section and a table. Use Auto Layout for all sections and group them logically as Header, Sidebar, Main.”
• “Use our existing Button/Primary component where CTAs appear. Don’t create new button styles.”

Then, after generation:

• Convert repeated patterns into components.
• Normalize spacing and typography using your design tokens.

---

Cleaner structure with v0

Use prompts like:

• “Generate a DashboardLayout React component with:
  • Header, Sidebar, MainContent, and Footer subcomponents. Use shadcn/ui Button and Card components and Tailwind for layout only.”
• “Create reusable components: StatCard, RecentActivityItem, and UserTable. Each should accept props rather than hardcoded data.”
• “Avoid inline styles and keep Tailwind classes concise and consistent. Prefer gap-4, p-4, rounded-lg, text-sm for base spacing and typography.”

Then, after generation:

• Extract any repeated JSX into new components.
• Align Tailwind classes with your design tokens.

---

When to choose Figma Make vs v0 (by workflow type)

Designer-led teams

• Primary tool: Figma Make
• Workflow:
  1. Use Make to generate pages and components directly in Figma.
  2. Clean up hierarchy and define proper components.
  3. Hand off to devs with clear layout and token usage.
• Use v0:
  • As an experimental step when devs want a quick coded prototype to test interactions.

---

Developer-led teams

• Primary tool: v0
• Workflow:
  1. Use v0 to generate your initial React layout and base components.
  2. Refactor and wire to real data.
  3. Optionally reflect critical screens back into Figma as static mocks.
• Use Figma Make:
  • For more polished visual concepts, marketing pages, or UX flows.

---

Hybrid “vibe-coding” teams

If your team fluidly bounces between design and code:

• Recommended approach:
  • Use v0 for:
    • Core app shell
    • Component structure
    • Data-bound UIs
  • Use Figma Make for:
    • Visual exploration and variants
    • Animations and prototypes
    • Collaboration with non-coders

You’ll get:

• Clean React structure.
• Clean-enough Figma structure you can maintain.
• Faster cross-discipline iteration.

---

FAQ

Which tool generates cleaner “components” out of the box?

• In Figma: Figma Make often generates good component candidates, but you frequently need to formalize them yourself.
• In code: v0 tends to generate more reusable React components directly, especially with good prompting.

---

Which produces better layouts for long-term maintainability?

• For Figma files: Figma Make, because it uses Auto Layout and constraints in a way that fits naturally into existing Figma workflows.
• For codebases: v0, because it outputs composable JSX and encourages component-based design.

---

Is one strictly “better” than the other?

No. They’re optimized for different layers of the stack:

• Figma Make → cleaner design layer structure.
• v0 → cleaner code layer structure.

The best choice depends on whether your source of truth is Figma or code.

---

Can I use both together effectively?

Yes, and it’s often ideal:

1. Use v0 to generate the React implementation (structure + logic).
2. Use Figma Make to shape, communicate, and iterate on visual and interaction design.
3. Keep naming and layout concepts aligned between tools (e.g., same component names, same regions).

---

Final recommendation

If your main concern is clean, editable UI structure from prompts:

• Choose Figma Make when:

  • Figma is your source of truth.
  • You care most about designers having a tidy, Auto Layout-driven canvas.
  • Devs are comfortable translating that into code.

• Choose v0 when:

  • React is your source of truth.
  • You care most about developers having clean, modular components.
  • Figma is secondary or used more for communication than as a strict blueprint.

For many modern AI and “vibe-coding” teams, the realistic answer is:

Use v0 to structure the code, and Figma Make to structure the conversation around the UI.