MS COCO (Common Objects in Context) ranks higher at 61/100 vs DesignPro at 40/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | DesignPro | MS COCO (Common Objects in Context) |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Product | Dataset |
| UnfragileRank | 40/100 | 61/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 1 |
| Quality |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 11 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Analyzes uploaded design files (Figma exports, PNG, JPG) using computer vision and design heuristics to automatically generate written feedback on composition, balance, visual hierarchy, and layout principles. The system likely uses pre-trained vision models combined with design-specific rule engines to evaluate spatial relationships, element alignment, and whitespace distribution, then generates natural language critique without requiring human reviewer input.
Unique: Combines vision model inference with design-specific rule engines to generate composition-focused critique, likely trained on design principles (rule of thirds, golden ratio, visual balance) rather than generic image analysis
vs alternatives: Provides instant, always-available composition feedback without human reviewer latency, unlike Figma's native features which require manual peer review or external services like Frame.io that depend on human availability
Analyzes color palettes and color usage within designs using color science models and design theory to generate feedback on harmony, contrast, accessibility, and emotional impact. The system extracts dominant colors from design files, evaluates them against color harmony models (complementary, analogous, triadic), checks WCAG contrast ratios for accessibility, and generates written recommendations on color choices without human input.
Unique: Integrates color extraction algorithms with WCAG contrast calculation and color harmony models (likely using HSL/HSV color spaces) to provide both aesthetic and accessibility-focused feedback in a single analysis pass
vs alternatives: Provides automated WCAG compliance checking integrated with aesthetic feedback, whereas standalone tools like WebAIM focus only on accessibility and design tools like Adobe Color require manual evaluation
Evaluates design mockups for usability issues by analyzing UI element placement, interactive affordances, information architecture, and user flow patterns. The system uses heuristic evaluation rules (Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, common UI patterns) combined with vision models to identify potential usability problems like unclear CTAs, poor information hierarchy, or confusing navigation patterns, then generates written recommendations.
Unique: Applies established usability heuristics (Nielsen's 10 heuristics, common UI patterns) via vision model analysis of static mockups, likely using object detection to identify UI components and evaluate their placement against usability rules
vs alternatives: Provides automated heuristic evaluation without requiring manual expert review, whereas traditional UX audit services require human specialists and user testing platforms like UserTesting focus on real user feedback rather than design-stage critique
Converts AI-generated feedback into actionable tasks within a unified workspace, allowing designers to track feedback items, assign revisions, and manage design iteration cycles without context switching between feedback tools and task managers. The system likely creates task objects from feedback critique points, links them to design files, tracks completion status, and maintains audit trails of design changes tied to specific feedback items.
Unique: Automatically converts AI feedback critique points into discrete tasks within the same workspace, eliminating the need to manually transcribe feedback into external task managers and maintaining bidirectional links between feedback and design iterations
vs alternatives: Keeps feedback and task management in one unified workspace, whereas Figma + external task managers (Asana, Linear) require manual task creation and context switching between tools
Accepts design file uploads (Figma exports, PNG, JPG, SVG) and maintains version history of uploaded designs, allowing designers to track changes across iterations and compare feedback across versions. The system likely stores files in cloud storage, maintains metadata about upload timestamps and associated feedback, and enables side-by-side comparison of design versions.
Unique: Maintains version history of design uploads with associated feedback metadata, likely using content-addressable storage or file hashing to deduplicate identical designs across versions
vs alternatives: Provides integrated version history tied to feedback, whereas Figma's native version history is design-tool-specific and external storage (Google Drive, Dropbox) lacks feedback context
Provides free access to core AI feedback capabilities with usage quotas (likely limited number of design uploads, feedback generations, or task creations per month), with paid tiers offering higher limits and additional features. The system likely implements quota tracking, rate limiting, and tier-based feature access at the API/application level.
Unique: Implements freemium tier with quota-based limits on AI feedback generations, likely using token counting or request counting to track usage and enforce tier-based rate limits
vs alternatives: Lowers barrier to entry compared to subscription-only tools like Frame.io or dedicated design feedback services, though specific quota limits and pricing are unknown
Processes multiple design files in a single batch operation, generating feedback for all uploaded designs and organizing results by file, allowing designers to get feedback on entire design systems or project suites without running individual analyses. The system likely queues batch jobs, processes files in parallel or sequential order, and aggregates results into a unified report or dashboard.
Unique: Orchestrates parallel or sequential processing of multiple design files with aggregated result reporting, likely using job queue systems (e.g., Celery, Bull) to manage batch workloads and prevent API rate limit issues
vs alternatives: Enables bulk feedback generation on design systems without manual per-file processing, whereas Figma's native features and Frame.io require individual file reviews
Provides 2.5 million manually-annotated object instances across 330,000 images with dual segmentation encoding: polygon coordinates for precise boundary definition and RLE (run-length encoding) for efficient storage and computation. Each instance includes bounding box coordinates in [x, y, width, height] format, category label from 80 object classes, and instance-level unique identifiers enabling per-object tracking and evaluation. Annotations are structured in JSON format with hierarchical organization linking images to annotations to categories, supporting both dense object scenes and sparse single-object images.
Unique: Dual segmentation encoding (polygon + RLE) in single dataset enables both precise boundary analysis and efficient computational workflows; 2.5M instances across 330K images provides scale unmatched by contemporaneous datasets (ImageNet had ~1.2M images, PASCAL VOC had ~11K images)
vs alternatives: Larger and more densely annotated than PASCAL VOC (11K images, ~6 objects/image) and more task-diverse than ImageNet (classification-only); RLE encoding enables 10-100x faster mask loading than polygon-only formats
Provides keypoint annotations for all people in images using a standardized 17-joint skeleton model (head, shoulders, elbows, wrists, hips, knees, ankles) with (x, y, visibility) tuples per joint. Visibility flag indicates whether keypoint is annotated (1), occluded (0), or outside image bounds (0). Keypoints are linked to parent person instances via instance ID, enabling pose estimation evaluation at both individual and crowd-level scales. Annotations follow COCO Keypoints task specification with consistent coordinate system across all 330K images.
Unique: Standardized 17-joint skeleton with explicit visibility flags enables robust evaluation of pose estimation under occlusion; linked to instance segmentation masks allows joint-level accuracy analysis within person bounding boxes
MS COCO (Common Objects in Context) scores higher at 61/100 vs DesignPro at 40/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than OpenPose dataset (no visibility flags) and larger scale than Human3.6M (3.6M frames vs 330K images); visibility annotations enable explicit occlusion handling unlike MPII (which lacks visibility metadata)
COCO ecosystem includes community-created extensions (COCO-Stuff, COCO DensePose, COCO Panoptic) that extend base dataset with additional annotations while maintaining compatibility with COCO API and evaluation infrastructure. Extensions follow COCO format and evaluation standards, enabling seamless integration into existing pipelines. Community contributions are vetted and published as official COCO variants, ensuring quality and standardization. Variant creation process is documented, enabling researchers to create custom extensions.
Unique: Standardized extension process enables community contributions while maintaining compatibility; official variants (Stuff, DensePose, Panoptic) are vetted and published, ensuring quality and discoverability
vs alternatives: More extensible than fixed datasets; community variants enable specialized use cases without forking; standardized format prevents fragmentation unlike ad-hoc dataset variants
Provides 1.65 million image-caption pairs (5 captions × 330K images) with natural language descriptions written by human annotators. Each caption is a free-form English sentence describing objects, actions, and scene context without enforced length limits or structured templates. Captions are stored in JSON format linked to image IDs, enabling training of vision-language models for image captioning, visual question answering, and cross-modal retrieval. Multiple captions per image capture linguistic diversity and alternative descriptions of the same visual content.
Unique: 5 captions per image (vs 1 in most datasets) captures linguistic diversity and enables robust evaluation of caption generation variability; 1.65M caption-image pairs provide scale for training large vision-language models
vs alternatives: 5x more captions per image than Flickr30K (1 caption/image) enabling better linguistic diversity modeling; larger scale than Visual Genome (108K images) while maintaining natural language quality vs automated alt-text
Extends base 80 object categories with 91 additional 'stuff' categories (background materials, textures, regions like sky, grass, wall) enabling dense semantic segmentation of entire images. Stuff categories are annotated as pixel-level masks without instance boundaries — all sky pixels are labeled 'sky' regardless of continuity. COCO-Stuff combines instance segmentation (80 objects) with semantic segmentation (171 total categories including stuff), stored as single-channel PNG masks where pixel value encodes category ID. Enables panoptic segmentation evaluation combining instance and stuff predictions.
Unique: 171-category taxonomy combining 80 instance objects + 91 stuff categories enables panoptic segmentation in single dataset; pixel-level masks for stuff enable dense scene understanding without instance boundaries
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than ADE20K (150 categories) and larger scale than Cityscapes (5K images); unified instance+stuff annotation enables panoptic evaluation unlike separate semantic/instance datasets
Combines instance segmentation (80 object categories with boundaries) and semantic segmentation (171 stuff categories without boundaries) into single panoptic prediction task. Evaluation uses Panoptic Quality (PQ) metric decomposed into Segmentation Quality (SQ — IoU of matched predictions) and Recognition Quality (RQ — detection rate). Panoptic masks encode both category ID and instance ID, enabling evaluation of both 'what' (category) and 'which' (instance identity) predictions. Standardized evaluation protocol with server-side metric computation ensures consistent benchmarking across submissions.
Unique: Panoptic Quality metric with explicit SQ/RQ decomposition enables fine-grained analysis of segmentation vs recognition errors; unified instance+stuff evaluation in single task forces models to handle both prediction types efficiently
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than separate instance/semantic benchmarks; PQ metric better captures real-world scene understanding than independent metrics; standardized evaluation prevents metric gaming unlike custom evaluation scripts
Provides dense 2D-to-3D correspondence maps for human bodies, mapping each pixel in a person instance to a 3D human body model surface. Annotations include UV coordinates (parameterization of 3D body surface) and body part indices enabling pixel-level body surface understanding. DensePose enables training of models that predict where each image pixel corresponds to on a canonical 3D human body, useful for pose transfer, virtual try-on, and detailed human understanding. Available from 2020 dataset version onwards, extends keypoint annotations with dense surface coverage.
Unique: Dense 2D-to-3D surface correspondence enables pixel-level body understanding beyond skeleton keypoints; UV parameterization allows transfer of appearance and shape across different people and poses
vs alternatives: More detailed than keypoint-only annotations (17 joints vs millions of surface points); enables pose transfer unlike keypoint datasets; larger scale than DensePose-specific datasets
Provides standardized evaluation metrics for each task (Average Precision for detection, IoU for segmentation, OKS for keypoints, BLEU/METEOR/CIDEr for captions, PQ for panoptic) computed server-side on held-out test set. Leaderboard system accepts structured JSON result submissions in COCO format, validates format, computes metrics, and ranks submissions by primary metric. Evaluation infrastructure ensures consistent benchmarking across all submissions and prevents metric gaming through standardized computation. Metrics are task-specific: AP/AP50/AP75 for detection, mIoU for segmentation, OKS for keypoints, CIDEr for captions.
Unique: Server-side metric computation prevents metric gaming and ensures consistency; task-specific metrics (AP, OKS, CIDEr, PQ) are standardized across all submissions enabling fair comparison; public leaderboard provides transparency and reproducibility
vs alternatives: More rigorous than self-reported metrics (prevents cherry-picking); standardized evaluation prevents metric implementation variations unlike custom evaluation scripts; public leaderboard enables community comparison unlike proprietary benchmarks
+3 more capabilities