TeleportHQ review: visual design to exportable front-end code

What TeleportHQ is, and who it is for

TeleportHQ answers a narrower question than most products here: how do you get from a visual layout to front-end code without hand-translating it? Its output is source code in the framework you pick, and the interesting part is that the generation engine is open source and usable on its own.

The audience is agencies and small teams producing static marketing sites across several frameworks, and developers who want a design-to-code step in their pipeline without adopting a runtime SDK. Because the output is code, the vendor disappears from your production stack the moment you export — which is a materially different risk profile from Builder.io or Plasmic's runtime loader.

It is not an embeddable editor. If your product needs an editing surface for your own customers, this is the wrong category and the embeddable libraries are the right one.

Architecture

Two separable layers. The studio is a hosted visual editor with an AI assistant and a publication step. The code generators are MIT-licensed npm packages that turn a project definition into framework-specific source.

That separation is unusual and worth understanding: you can use the generators in your own pipeline without the studio at all, which makes TeleportHQ interesting to teams building their own design-to-code tooling rather than buying one.

The generated output is presentation-focused. Layout, styling and static structure translate well; application state, data fetching and interactivity remain your code. Treat it as a scaffolding tool rather than an application generator, and it delivers; expect it to generate an app, and it will disappoint.

How we assessed it

We have not run TeleportHQ hands-on, so no score and no code sample appear here — see methodology. Registry metadata confirms the MIT licence, publication history and current version of the generator packages; pricing is recorded from the vendor's published page with the date we checked it.

Strengths

Exportable code, no runtime dependency. Once exported, the vendor is out of your stack. For teams nervous about platform risk this is the strongest form of exit guarantee in this dataset.

Multi-framework output. React, Vue and Angular from the same design, which is genuinely useful for agencies serving clients on different stacks.

Open-source generators. The generation layer is MIT licensed and independently usable.

Low entry price. Around $9 per editor per month on annual billing is the cheapest paid tier among the commercial tools here.

Real-time collaboration in the studio. Multiple people in the same project without file juggling.

Limitations

Restrictive free tier. One project and limited code views make evaluation cramped compared with Plasmic's unlimited-projects free tier.

Not embeddable. No path to giving the editor to your own customers.

Presentation-only output. Generated code covers layout and styling; behaviour is yours. Expect to treat exports as a starting point that you then own — including the second time a design changes.

Round-tripping is the weak spot. Design-to-code tools are strongest on the first export and weakest on the fifth. Once engineers have edited the generated code, regenerating is a merge problem, and that is where teams usually stop using these tools.

A smaller ecosystem and community than Builder.io or Plasmic, which shows in the volume of worked examples available when you get stuck.

Pricing

Vendor-published: free plan with one project, three pages per project and limited code views/downloads; Professional at $18 per editor per month billed monthly or around $9 billed annually, with unlimited projects and exports; Agency by quote.

The comparison worth running is not against embeddable SDKs — different category — but against your current Figma-to-code process and against Plasmic, which offers a stronger canvas and a runtime option at a higher price.

Questions to ask before you buy

1. What does round-tripping look like after engineers edit the exported code? This is where design-to-code tools usually stop being used, so ask for the intended workflow explicitly.
2. Which parts of our design system can be registered so exports use them? Otherwise every export reintroduces markup you have already standardised.
3. How much of the generated code is layout versus behaviour? Set the expectation that interactivity remains yours.
4. Can the code generators run in our CI without the studio? The MIT-licensed generators make this plausible, and the answer determines how deeply you can automate.
5. What is the export limit on our tier? The free plan's limited code views are a real evaluation constraint.
6. How are exports affected by a framework major version? Generated React for React 18 and 19 is not identical, and the generator's support policy matters.

Where it sits in this dataset

TeleportHQ is the cheapest commercial visual tool profiled here and the one with the smallest footprint in your production stack: after export, there is nothing left of the vendor. That is a genuinely different risk profile from every hosted product in this dataset.

The trade is depth. Plasmic has the stronger canvas and a runtime option; Builder.io has the platform features. TeleportHQ's proposition is narrower and cleaner: designs in, framework code out.

If exportable code is the appeal but you also need an editor your customers use, note that these are different requirements with no overlap — the code generators do not make an embeddable editor, and the open-source engines are the category that does.