Why UX Designers Are Ditching Figma for Cursor

I spent years doing this: design something in Figma, hand it off, watch a developer rebuild it in code, then repeat the cycle every time feedback comes in. It worked, but it always felt like I was adding extra steps between my idea and the actual thing.

Recently I started trying something different. Instead of designing in Figma first, I've been using Cursor and Claude Code to build working prototypes directly. It's weird at first, but it changes everything about how feedback works.

This isn't about becoming a developer. I'm still designing. I'm just designing with working interfaces instead of static ones.

What You're Actually Designing in Figma

Here's what hit me after years of Figma work: when I design an input box in Figma, I'm making a rectangle that looks like an input. But you can't actually type in it. It doesn't validate email formats or show error messages. It just sits there looking like the thing.

Same with buttons. I can make them look perfect, add hover states in prototype mode, but the loading spinner? The error handling when an API call fails? The disabled state logic? That's all described in comments or explained in handoff meetings.

Dropdowns are even worse. To make a searchable dropdown with keyboard navigation, I need to wire up dozens of prototype connections manually. And it still won't actually filter anything.

In Figma, I'm designing how things look. In code, you build how things work. And there's always this translation layer in between where details get lost or misunderstood.

The Things That Are Hard to Prototype

Try prototyping a calculator in Figma. You'd need to make a frame for every possible number combination. 1+1, 1+2, 1+3... It's impossible. In Cursor, it's 20 lines of code that handles any calculation.

Or a chat interface that streams AI responses character by character. In Figma, you'd fake it with animations. In Cursor, you connect to any AI API and it just works. Typing indicators, error states, the whole thing.

Real-time form validation is another one. I've created manual error states for every field in Figma, color-coding each scenario. Then in code, the developer uses something like React Hook Form and it's automatic. My Figma file was documentation, not a prototype.

When you're prototyping anything with real data, API calls, or conditional logic, Figma makes you simulate it. Code just does it.

Why I Got Tired of the Handoff Dance

You know this workflow. You design something in Figma. Schedule a handoff meeting to walk through all the interactions. Developer rebuilds it. Then feedback comes: "when the user clicks here, can it do this instead?" Back to Figma, back to code, back to meetings.

Every change goes through this cycle. Change the button → update Figma → explain to developer → wait for rebuild → review. It works, but it's slow and things get lost in translation.

With Cursor, I can write a prompt using my design system (there's a prompt template for that), get a working prototype in a couple minutes, deploy it to Vercel, and send the link to stakeholders. When feedback comes in, I update the prompt and regenerate. No handoff meeting. No rebuild. Just iterate.

The prototype is already code. When we're done iterating, it's ready for a developer to polish and connect to the real backend. We're not translating anything.

What About Figma Dev Mode / Make?

"But wait," you're thinking. "Figma has Dev Mode now. And they announced Figma Make for generating code. Doesn't that solve this?"

Not quite. Figma Make sits in the middle, not powerful enough to replace real code, but more complex than traditional design tools. Here's why:

Figma Make is fine for prototyping, if you're already deep in Figma and want to quickly generate React components for user testing. But it doesn't solve the core problem: you're still creating static artifacts that need to be rebuilt for production.

With Cursor or Claude Code, you're working in production code from minute one. No migration. No translation. The prototype becomes the product.

What You Get Access To

This is the part that surprised me. Once I was working in Cursor, I could use Tailwind and ShadCN instead of rebuilding components from scratch in Figma. I could call actual APIs and see my design with production data, real content lengths, real edge cases, all of it.

I could make forms that actually validate. Add my OpenAI key and prototype AI features that work, not mock them up. Deploy to Vercel and get a URL that anyone can use, no Figma account needed.

The difference is: in Figma, you're limited by what the plugins and features let you do. In code, you're limited by what the web can do. That's a way bigger space.

You're not describing how something should work and hoping a developer interprets it correctly. You're just building the thing that works that way.

How to Make the Switch: Start Small, Think Code-First

I didn't drop Figma completely. I just started trying Cursor for specific things.

Pick one interactive component first. Something where behavior matters, a form, a modal, a search bar. Don't try to rebuild everything.

If you have a Figma design system, you can extract it using Figma MCP and convert it to a prompt with this converter. Then every component you build in Cursor will match your system, colors, typography, spacing, everything.

Make it actually do something. If it's a form, add validation. If it's a modal, make it open and close. If it's a search bar, wire it to real data. Don't just recreate the visual, build the behavior.

Deploy it. Vercel or Netlify both take like two minutes. Send the URL to someone. They can actually use it, not just look at it.

When feedback comes, update your prompt. "Make this bigger," "add a loading state," "change the spacing." Cursor updates it. Changes happen in seconds instead of hours.

Common Questions

"I can't write code."

You don't have to. You write prompts, AI writes the code. And honestly, React with Tailwind is pretty readable once you see it a few times. Reads almost like English.

"Developers will have to redo it anyway."

Maybe for production, yeah. But you're giving them a working prototype to refine instead of screenshots to rebuild. That's a huge head start.

"Stakeholders can't review code."

They're not reviewing code. They're clicking a URL. Using a working prototype. It's way more informative than Figma prototype mode.

"What if I need pixel-perfect layouts?"

You can extract exact measurements from screenshots using this tool and validate against your design system with this validator. In my experience, you get closer to pixel-perfect this way than through traditional handoff.

What This Means for Designers

Figma changed design. Made collaboration easy, design systems accessible, visual work faster. That's not going anywhere.

But the things we're designing are changing. More dynamic, more intelligent, more connected to real data. Prototyping these in static mocks feels like trying to explain a video by drawing each frame.

Tools like Cursor and Claude Code let you prototype with working interfaces. You're not becoming a developer. You're just adding another tool. Same as when you learned Figma after Photoshop.

Designers trying this aren't replacing developers. They're getting feedback faster, communicating clearer, and validating ideas with working prototypes instead of documentation.

Worth trying: build one thing in Cursor this week. Something small and interactive. Deploy it, share the link, see how the feedback is different when people can actually use it.

You might find it fits into your process. Or you might not. But either way, you'll know.