# TeleportHQ review: visual design to exportable front-end code

*Source: https://www.editorstack.cc/libraries/teleporthq — last updated 2026-08-19. Licensed CC BY 4.0 with attribution to EditorStack.*


## Summary

- TeleportHQ is a low-code front-end platform whose output is exportable code in React, Vue or Angular rather than a runtime dependency on the vendor.
- Its code generation libraries are separately open source under MIT and have been on npm since September 2019, so the generation layer can be used independently of the hosted studio.
- Vendor-published pricing: a free plan limited to one project, Professional at $18 per editor per month monthly or around $9 annually, and a quote-only Agency tier.

## Quick facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Type | sdk |
| Licence | Proprietary |
| First release | 2019-09 |
| Language | TypeScript |
| Frameworks | Any (framework-agnostic) |
| SSR support | partial |
| Bundle (min+gzip) | Not measurable |
| Pricing | from $9/mo |
| npm weekly downloads | 1,165 |
| GitHub stars | 1,116 |
| Latest version | 0.43.65 |
| Last verified | 2026-08-19 |
| Drag & drop canvas | Yes |
| Responsive breakpoints | Yes |
| Visual style manager | Yes |
| Custom components | Yes |
| Data binding | Yes |
| E-commerce blocks | No |
| Email HTML export | No |
| AI generation | Yes |
| Editor i18n | Partial |
| White label | Partial |
| Self-hosted | No |

## 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](/libraries/builder-io) or [Plasmic](/libraries/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](/categories/open-source-visual-editors) 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](/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](/compare/plasmic-vs-teleporthq), 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](/compare/plasmic-vs-teleporthq) has the stronger canvas and a runtime
option; [Builder.io](/libraries/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](/categories/open-source-visual-editors) are the category that does.

## Who it fits, and who it does not

**Good fit**

- Teams that want design-to-code output they can commit to a repository rather than a runtime dependency
- Agencies producing static marketing sites across several front-end frameworks
- Projects that want to use the open-source code generators independently of the hosted studio

**Poor fit**

- Embedding an editor for your own end customers, which is not the product's shape
- Applications needing a runtime editing surface inside the product UI
- Complex application state, since generated code is presentation-focused


## TeleportHQ against its nearest neighbours

| Product | Type | Licence | Frameworks | Bundle (min+gzip) | Price from | Self-hosted | White label | Score |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [TeleportHQ](https://www.editorstack.cc/libraries/teleporthq) | sdk | Proprietary | Any (framework-agnostic) | Not measurable | from $9/mo | No | Partial | not scored |
| [Builder.io](https://www.editorstack.cc/libraries/builder-io) | sdk | Proprietary | React, Vue, Angular | Not measurable | from $19/mo | No | Partial | not scored |
| [Plasmic](https://www.editorstack.cc/libraries/plasmic) | sdk | Proprietary | React | Not measurable | from $39/mo | No | No | not scored |
| [Beefree SDK](https://www.editorstack.cc/libraries/beefree-sdk) | sdk | Proprietary | Any (framework-agnostic) | Not measurable | from $350/mo | No | Yes | not scored |


## Our scores

Not scored. We publish scores only for products we have run hands-on; see the methodology page.


## Alternatives

- [TeleportHQ vs Plasmic](https://www.editorstack.cc/compare/plasmic-vs-teleporthq)


## Frequently asked questions

### Does TeleportHQ produce code I own?

Yes — code export is the core proposition. You get React, Vue or Angular source you can commit, which means no runtime SDK and no vendor in your request path.

### Is TeleportHQ open source?

Partly. The teleport code generator packages are MIT licensed on npm; the hosted studio is a commercial product.

### How much does TeleportHQ cost?

Vendor-published: a free plan with one project and limited exports, Professional at $18 per editor per month billed monthly or roughly $9 per editor per month billed annually, and a custom-priced Agency tier.

### Can I embed TeleportHQ in my product?

It is not designed as an embeddable editor for your customers. It is a design and code-generation tool for your team; for embedding, an SDK or an open-source engine is the right category.


## Sources

1. [npm registry metadata for @teleporthq/teleport-code-generator (MIT licence, first publish date, latest version)](https://registry.npmjs.org/@teleporthq/teleport-code-generator) — accessed 2026-08-19
2. [TeleportHQ pricing page (vendor-published plan prices)](https://teleporthq.io/pricing) — accessed 2026-08-19
3. [TeleportHQ documentation](https://docs.teleporthq.io) — accessed 2026-08-19