MS COCO (Common Objects in Context) ranks higher at 61/100 vs Sketch2App at 40/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | Sketch2App | 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 | 8 decomposed | 11 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Converts hand-drawn wireframes (paper or tablet sketches) into clickable HTML/CSS prototypes by combining computer vision for element detection with automatic interaction flow inference. Uses OCR and shape recognition to identify UI components (buttons, text fields, navigation elements) and their spatial relationships, then generates a functional prototype with basic interactivity without manual recreation.
Unique: Uses multi-stage computer vision pipeline combining shape detection (for UI component identification) with OCR (for text extraction) and spatial relationship analysis to infer interaction flows, rather than simple image-to-HTML generation — enables automatic button linking and navigation flow creation without explicit user annotation
vs alternatives: Faster than manual Figma recreation for rough sketches and more interactive than static image exports, but produces less polished output than Figma-native prototyping and lacks design system integration that tools like Penpot offer
Identifies and classifies hand-drawn UI components (buttons, text fields, checkboxes, navigation bars, images) using computer vision and machine learning models trained on sketch patterns. Analyzes shape, size, position, and contextual cues to determine component type and semantic role within the layout, enabling automatic code generation for each identified element.
Unique: Implements sketch-specific ML models trained on hand-drawn UI patterns rather than generic object detection, enabling recognition of imperfect, stylized component drawings that would confuse standard YOLO or Faster R-CNN models — includes contextual inference (e.g., recognizing a small rectangle near text as a label, not a button)
vs alternatives: More accurate than generic image-to-code tools (like Pix2Code) for UI sketches because it understands sketch-specific visual conventions, but less accurate than human-annotated Figma designs and lacks the design system awareness of Figma's component detection
Automatically infers navigation and interaction flows from spatial relationships and element positioning in sketches, creating clickable connections between screens without explicit user annotation. Analyzes button placement, proximity to navigation elements, and layout patterns to generate reasonable default interactions (e.g., button clicks navigate to next screen, form submissions trigger confirmation screens).
Unique: Uses spatial heuristics and layout analysis to infer interaction intent without explicit user annotation — analyzes button proximity to screen edges, navigation element positioning, and multi-screen organization to generate reasonable default flows, rather than requiring manual link creation like traditional prototyping tools
vs alternatives: Faster than manually creating interactions in Figma or Axure, but produces only basic linear flows compared to Figma's full interaction engine and lacks the sophisticated state management of dedicated prototyping tools like Framer
Applies computer vision preprocessing to raw sketch images to improve OCR and element detection accuracy, including contrast enhancement, skew correction, noise reduction, and line thickening. Normalizes variations in pen pressure, ink consistency, and image quality to create a standardized input for downstream ML models, compensating for the inherent variability of hand-drawn input.
Unique: Implements sketch-specific preprocessing pipeline (contrast enhancement tuned for pencil/pen strokes, adaptive thresholding for variable ink density, line-aware noise reduction) rather than generic image enhancement, preserving sketch line quality while removing camera artifacts and lighting variations
vs alternatives: More robust to mobile camera input than generic image-to-code tools because preprocessing is optimized for sketch characteristics, but less effective than professional scanner input and cannot match the quality of native digital sketching tools like Procreate or Clip Studio
Generates functional HTML and CSS code from detected UI elements and inferred layouts, creating a responsive prototype that can be previewed in a web browser. Maps detected components to semantic HTML elements (buttons, inputs, divs) and generates CSS for positioning, sizing, and basic styling based on sketch appearance (colors, text styles, spacing inferred from sketch).
Unique: Generates semantic HTML with appropriate ARIA labels and element types (button, input, nav) rather than generic divs, enabling basic accessibility and correct browser behavior — includes automatic layout inference using CSS Grid or Flexbox based on detected element relationships
vs alternatives: Produces actual code (not just visual prototypes) that can be exported and customized, unlike Figma prototypes, but generates significantly less polished output than hand-coded HTML and lacks the design system integration of tools like Penpot or Framer
Extracts handwritten and printed text from sketch images using optical character recognition (OCR), converting hand-drawn labels, button text, and form field placeholders into machine-readable text. Handles variable handwriting styles, sketch-specific text characteristics (often larger, less uniform than printed text), and contextual text placement to populate generated prototypes with actual content.
Unique: Uses sketch-optimized OCR models (trained on hand-drawn text characteristics) combined with spatial context analysis to associate text with nearby UI elements, rather than generic OCR — enables automatic population of button labels, field placeholders, and navigation text without manual mapping
vs alternatives: More accurate than generic OCR for sketch text because models are trained on hand-drawn characteristics, but significantly less accurate than printed text OCR and requires manual correction for messy handwriting, unlike professional transcription services
Provides a web-based preview environment where generated prototypes can be viewed, interacted with, and tested in real-time without export or additional tools. Enables clicking through navigation flows, testing form inputs, and validating interaction logic directly in the browser, with responsive preview modes for different screen sizes.
Unique: Provides instant browser-based preview without export or local setup, with automatic responsive layout adaptation — enables quick iteration and stakeholder feedback loops without requiring designers to learn export/hosting workflows
vs alternatives: Faster feedback loop than exporting and manually testing, but less feature-rich than Figma's native prototyping engine and lacks the advanced interaction capabilities of Framer or Webflow
Exports generated prototypes as downloadable HTML/CSS files that can be imported into code editors, version control systems, or development environments for further customization and refinement. Provides clean, readable code structure with comments and semantic HTML to enable developers to extend functionality, integrate with backends, or apply design system standards.
Unique: Exports semantic HTML with proper element hierarchy and ARIA labels, enabling straightforward integration with accessibility tools and design systems — includes CSS variables for colors and spacing, facilitating theme customization and design system application
vs alternatives: Provides actual exportable code (unlike Figma prototypes which are design-only), but requires more developer effort to integrate than framework-specific code generators (like Framer's React export) and lacks design system awareness of tools like Penpot
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 Sketch2App 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