| Ecosystem | 0 | 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Starting Price | — | $5/mo (Mini) |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates multimodal agents' ability to interact with actual operating system graphical interfaces across Ubuntu, Windows, and macOS by executing tasks that require screenshot understanding, mouse/keyboard simulation, and application navigation. Uses custom execution-based evaluation scripts per task that capture initial OS state, execute agent actions, and verify task completion against ground truth outcomes in real sandboxed environments.
Unique: Executes tasks on actual operating systems (Ubuntu, Windows, macOS) with custom per-task evaluation scripts rather than simulated environments or synthetic UI frameworks. Grounds agent evaluation in real application behavior, file I/O, and OS-level state changes, capturing the complexity of multi-app workflows and GUI grounding that synthetic benchmarks cannot replicate.
vs alternatives: More realistic than simulated GUI benchmarks (e.g., WebShop, MiniWoB) because it tests against actual OS behavior and real applications, but requires significantly more computational infrastructure than synthetic alternatives, making it less accessible for individual researchers.
Distributes 369 benchmark tasks across three operating systems (Ubuntu, Windows, macOS) with OS-specific initial state configurations and evaluation scripts. Each task includes a detailed setup configuration that establishes the OS environment, file structures, and application states before agent execution, enabling reproducible evaluation of agent performance across platform-specific UI paradigms and application ecosystems.
Unique: Includes OS-specific initial state setup configurations and custom evaluation scripts per task, rather than a single generic task definition. This approach captures OS-level differences in file systems, UI paradigms, and application ecosystems, but requires maintaining three parallel task implementations and evaluation harnesses.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-OS benchmarks because it tests cross-platform generalization, but significantly increases benchmark maintenance burden and infrastructure requirements compared to OS-agnostic synthetic benchmarks.
Evaluates agent capability to understand and interact with graphical user interfaces by analyzing screenshots and identifying UI elements, buttons, menus, and text fields. Tests agent ability to visually ground task instructions in the actual UI state, a capability identified as a key limitation in current agents.
Unique: Explicitly evaluates GUI grounding and visual understanding as a core agent capability, identifying it as a key limitation in current agents. This focuses evaluation on a specific bottleneck rather than treating visual understanding as a solved problem.
vs alternatives: More targeted than generic multimodal benchmarks because it focuses on GUI understanding as a specific capability, but may not capture other important agent limitations like operational knowledge or task planning.
Evaluates agent capability to understand how to use applications and perform operations within them, testing knowledge of application-specific workflows, menu structures, keyboard shortcuts, and domain-specific operations. Identified as a key limitation in current agents alongside GUI grounding.
Unique: Explicitly evaluates operational knowledge and application expertise as a core agent capability, identifying it as a key limitation in current agents. This tests agent capability to understand how to use applications, not just how to interact with GUIs.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than GUI-only benchmarks because it tests both visual understanding and operational knowledge, but harder to diagnose which capability is limiting agent performance.
Implements task-specific evaluation scripts that execute agent actions against real OS state and verify completion by checking file system changes, application state modifications, and other observable outcomes. Each of the 369 tasks includes a custom evaluation script that defines success criteria, captures execution traces, and produces reproducible verdicts independent of agent architecture or implementation details.
Unique: Uses custom per-task evaluation scripts rather than generic scoring functions, enabling task-specific success criteria that capture domain knowledge (e.g., correct file format, application-specific state changes). This approach is more accurate than generic metrics but requires significant engineering effort and domain expertise per task.
vs alternatives: More accurate than generic scoring functions for complex, multi-step tasks, but less scalable and harder to maintain than standardized evaluation metrics used in simpler benchmarks.
Grounds benchmark tasks in real-world computer use cases derived from actual user workflows, file management operations, application usage patterns, and multi-app interactions. Tasks are not synthetic or artificially constructed but represent genuine computer tasks that users perform, including file organization, document editing, web browsing, email management, and cross-application data workflows.
Unique: Tasks are derived from real-world computer use cases rather than synthetic or artificially constructed scenarios, aiming to evaluate agent capability on tasks that users actually perform. This grounds evaluation in practical utility but introduces data contamination risks and makes it harder to control task difficulty and distribution.
vs alternatives: More practically relevant than synthetic benchmarks (e.g., WebShop, MiniWoB) because tasks represent actual user workflows, but less controlled and harder to validate than carefully constructed synthetic tasks with known difficulty and no training data overlap.
Provides standardized evaluation infrastructure for measuring multimodal agent performance (combining vision and language understanding) on computer task completion. Establishes baseline human performance (72.36% success rate) and current state-of-the-art model performance (12.24% success rate), quantifying the gap between human and AI agent capability on real OS tasks.
Unique: Establishes quantified baseline performance (human 72.36% vs SOTA 12.24%) on real OS tasks, creating a measurable target for agent improvement. The large gap indicates substantial room for progress and highlights specific capability gaps (GUI grounding, operational knowledge) that agents need to address.
vs alternatives: More realistic performance measurement than synthetic benchmarks because it uses real OS environments and real-world tasks, but the 60+ percentage point gap between human and SOTA performance suggests the benchmark may be too difficult to provide useful signal for incremental improvements.
Provides a web-based interactive viewer for exploring benchmark tasks, initial states, expected outcomes, and evaluation results. Enables researchers and developers to inspect individual tasks, understand evaluation criteria, and analyze agent performance without requiring local execution of the full benchmark infrastructure.
Unique: Provides interactive web-based exploration of benchmark tasks and results rather than requiring local data access or command-line tools. Lowers barrier to entry for researchers who want to understand benchmark tasks without setting up evaluation infrastructure.
vs alternatives: More accessible than command-line or programmatic data access, but potentially less powerful for bulk analysis or custom queries compared to direct data access.
+4 more capabilities
Converts text prompts describing website requirements into complete, multi-page responsive website layouts with copy, images, and animations in seconds. The system ingests natural language descriptions (e.g., 'three unique landing pages in dark mode for a modern design startup'), processes them through an undisclosed LLM pipeline, and outputs design variations as editable React-compatible components in the visual editor. Generation appears to be single-pass without iterative refinement loops, producing immediately-editable designs rather than requiring approval workflows.
Unique: Generates complete multi-page websites with layout, copy, images, and animations from single text prompts, outputting directly into a Figma-quality visual editor where designs remain fully editable rather than locked outputs. Most competitors (Wix, Squarespace) use template selection; Framer generates custom layouts per prompt.
vs alternatives: Faster than hiring a designer and more customizable than template-based builders, but slower and less flexible than human designers for complex brand requirements.
Browser-based visual design interface with design-tool-grade capabilities including responsive layout editing, effects/interactions/animations, shader effects (Holo Shader, Chromatic Aberration, Logo Shaders), and real-time multi-user collaboration. The editor supports role-based permissions (viewers read-only, editors can modify), direct copy editing on published pages, and simultaneous editing by multiple team members. Built on React component architecture allowing both visual design and custom code insertion without leaving the editor.
Unique: Combines Figma-level visual design capabilities with direct website publishing and custom React component integration in a single tool, eliminating the designer→developer handoff. Includes proprietary shader effects library (Holo, Chromatic Aberration) not available in standard design tools. Real-time collaboration uses Framer's infrastructure rather than relying on external sync services.
More design-capable than Webflow (which prioritizes no-code logic) and more publishing-integrated than Figma (which requires export to separate hosting), but less feature-rich for complex interactions than Webflow's visual logic builder.
Framer scores higher at 82/100 vs OSWorld at 64/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables creation and management of website content in multiple languages with separate content variants per locale. Available as a Pro-tier add-on with undisclosed pricing. Allows content creators to maintain language-specific versions of pages, CMS items, and copy. Implementation details (language detection, URL structure, fallback behavior, supported languages) are not documented.
Unique: Integrates multi-language content management directly into the CMS and visual editor, allowing designers to manage language variants without external translation tools. Content structure is shared across languages; only content is localized.
vs alternatives: Simpler than Contentful with language variants because no separate content model configuration required, but less flexible for complex localization workflows or translation management.
Enables one-click rollback to previous website versions, allowing teams to quickly revert breaking changes or problematic updates. Available on Pro tier and above. Maintains version history of published sites with ability to restore any previous version. Implementation details (version retention policy, automatic snapshots, granular change tracking) are not documented.
Unique: Provides one-click rollback directly in the publishing interface without requiring Git or version control knowledge. Automatic version snapshots are created on each publish. Most website builders require manual backups or external version control; Framer includes it natively.
vs alternatives: Simpler than Git-based workflows for non-technical users, but less granular than Git for selective rollback of specific changes.
Provides a server-side API for programmatic access to Framer sites, CMS content, and site management operations. Listed in product updates but not documented in detail. Capabilities, authentication, rate limits, and supported operations are unknown. Likely enables external systems to read/write CMS data, trigger deployments, or manage site configuration.
Unique: Provides server-side API access to Framer sites and CMS, enabling external integrations and automation. Specific capabilities unknown due to lack of documentation, but likely enables content synchronization with external systems.
vs alternatives: Unknown without documentation, but likely enables deeper integrations than visual-only builders like Wix or Squarespace.
Enables password protection of individual pages or entire sites, restricting access to authorized users only. Available on Basic tier and above. Allows teams to share draft content or restricted pages with specific audiences without making them publicly accessible. Implementation details (password hashing, session management, per-page vs site-wide protection) are not documented.
Unique: Integrates password protection directly into the publishing interface without requiring external authentication services. Available on Basic tier, making it accessible to all users. Simple password-based approach is easier than OAuth or SAML for non-technical users.
vs alternatives: Simpler than OAuth-based authentication for quick access control, but less secure for sensitive data because password-based protection is weaker than multi-factor authentication.
Integrated content management system supporting collections (content types), items (individual records), and relational data linking across collections. The CMS supports dynamic filtering of content on pages, multi-locale content variants (Pro add-on), and auto-publish/staging workflows. Data is stored in Framer's infrastructure with tiered limits: 1 collection/1,000 items (Basic), 10 collections/2,500 items (Pro), 20 collections/10,000 items (Scale). Relational CMS (linking between collections) is Pro-tier and above. Content can be edited directly on published pages without rebuilding.
Unique: Integrates CMS directly into the visual editor with no separate admin interface, allowing designers to manage content structure and pages in one tool. Supports relational data linking between collections (Pro+) and direct on-page editing of published content without rebuilds. Most website builders separate CMS from design; Framer unifies them.
vs alternatives: Simpler than Contentful or Strapi for non-technical users because CMS structure is defined visually, but less flexible for complex data models or external integrations.
One-click publishing of websites to Framer-managed global CDN with automatic responsive optimization across devices. Supports custom domain connection (free .com on annual plans), Framer subdomains, staging environments (Pro+), instant rollback (Pro+), site redirects (Pro+), and password protection (Basic+). Hosting includes 20 CDN locations on Basic/Pro tiers and 300+ locations on Scale tier. Bandwidth limits are 10 GB (Basic), 100 GB (Pro), 200 GB (Scale) with $40 per 100 GB overage charges. Page limits are 30 (Basic), 150 (Pro), 300 (Scale) with $20 per 100 additional pages.
Unique: Integrates hosting, CDN, and staging directly into the design tool with one-click publishing, eliminating separate hosting provider setup. Automatic responsive optimization and global CDN distribution are built-in rather than requiring external services. Staging and rollback are native features, not add-ons.
vs alternatives: Simpler than Vercel/Netlify for non-technical users because no Git/CI-CD knowledge required, but less flexible for complex deployment pipelines or custom server logic.
+6 more capabilities