MS COCO (Common Objects in Context) ranks higher at 61/100 vs Workflow at 41/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | Workflow | MS COCO (Common Objects in Context) |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Product | Dataset |
| UnfragileRank | 41/100 | 61/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 1 |
| Quality |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 11 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Enables reviewers to comment directly on design assets (websites, images, videos, PDFs, Figma files) via shareable links without requiring account signup. When a comment is placed, the system automatically captures a screenshot of the asset state, browser metadata (name, resolution, device type), and timestamp, storing this context alongside the comment for asynchronous reference. Implementation uses browser-based canvas rendering for point-and-click annotation positioning and server-side screenshot capture to preserve visual state at comment time.
Unique: Automatic screenshot pinning at comment time captures the exact visual state reviewers saw, including browser/device metadata, without requiring manual screenshot uploads — differentiates from Figma comments (design-only) and Loom (video-only feedback)
vs alternatives: Eliminates signup friction and manual context capture that tools like Frame.io or Figma require, making it faster for non-technical clients to provide feedback on live websites
Allows reviewers to record video feedback (voice + screen/camera capture) directly within the platform without external tools, with automatic playback controls and the ability to attach timestamp-specific comments to video frames. The system stores video files (storage mechanism and size limits unknown) and enables designers to scrub through recordings while leaving comments tied to specific moments, creating a temporal feedback trail. Implementation likely uses browser MediaRecorder API for client-side capture and server-side video storage with frame-indexed comment metadata.
Unique: Embeds video recording directly in the feedback tool without requiring Loom, Wistia, or external video platforms — reduces tool switching and keeps all feedback in one place with native timestamp-comment binding
vs alternatives: Faster than Loom for quick feedback loops because video stays in context with other comments; cheaper than Frame.io's video review features for teams already using Workflow
Planned feature (marked 'soon' on pricing page) that will automatically detect design issues including accessibility violations, typography inconsistencies, and mobile responsiveness problems. Implementation details are completely unknown — no information on model architecture, detection algorithms, false positive rates, or rollout timeline. This feature is NOT currently available and should not be considered when evaluating the product.
Unique: Planned but unimplemented — cannot be evaluated against alternatives until released with technical details
vs alternatives: Unknown — insufficient information to assess against design QA tools like Figma's accessibility plugin or dedicated accessibility checkers
Enables feedback collection on password-protected websites by supporting HTTP Basic Authentication and other browser-native authentication methods, allowing reviewers to access gated sites without exposing credentials in Workflow. Implementation likely uses browser-level credential handling or proxy-based authentication, though details are not documented.
Unique: Supports password-protected sites without storing credentials, reducing security risk — differs from tools that require credential storage or VPN access
vs alternatives: More secure than email-based feedback on staging sites; less flexible than VPN-based access for complex authentication scenarios
Automatically assigns sequential numbers to comments as they are created, enabling designers and reviewers to reference specific feedback items in discussions (e.g., 'address comment #5 first'). Implementation uses auto-incrementing comment IDs with display formatting, reducing ambiguity when discussing feedback verbally or in chat. This is a core feature available on both free and paid tiers.
Unique: Simple auto-numbering reduces friction for verbal feedback discussion — differs from Figma's comment threading which uses text-based references
vs alternatives: Simpler than Figma's comment system; less powerful than dedicated discussion tools like Slack threads
Maintains a version history of design assets and organizes feedback into discrete rounds, allowing designers to track how feedback evolved across iterations and reviewers to see what changed between versions. The system stores snapshots of assets at each version point and associates comments with specific versions, enabling comparison of feedback across rounds. Implementation uses server-side version storage with version-indexed comment metadata, though version comparison UI (side-by-side diff view) is marked as 'coming soon' and not yet available.
Unique: Organizes feedback by version rounds rather than flat comment threads, making it clear which feedback applies to which iteration — differs from Figma's comment model which doesn't explicitly track version-to-feedback relationships
vs alternatives: Clearer feedback lineage than email threads or Slack; weaker than dedicated design collaboration tools like Frame.io because version comparison UI is not yet implemented
Provides a paid-tier kanban board interface for organizing comments into customizable columns (e.g., 'To Review', 'In Progress', 'Done'), enabling designers to prioritize and track feedback action items. The system allows drag-and-drop movement of comments between columns and likely persists column state server-side. This is a paid-only feature, unavailable on the free tier, and implementation details (column customization, automation rules, filtering) are not documented.
Unique: Integrates kanban view directly into feedback tool rather than requiring export to external project management — keeps feedback context in one place but lacks automation and integration depth of dedicated PM tools
vs alternatives: Simpler than Monday.com or Asana for feedback-specific workflows; weaker than Figma's comment organization because it's a separate view rather than inline comment threading
Provides a paid-tier branded client portal where non-technical clients can access projects, review feedback, and explicitly approve designs via an approval button without navigating the full Workflow interface. The system includes guided tours to onboard clients unfamiliar with design feedback tools, reducing explanation burden. Implementation likely uses role-based access control (client vs. designer views) and server-side approval state tracking, though portal customization options (branding, custom domains) are not documented.
Unique: Combines simplified client view with guided onboarding tours, reducing friction for non-technical stakeholders — differs from Figma's client review which assumes design literacy
vs alternatives: More client-friendly than Figma's native sharing; less feature-rich than dedicated client portal platforms like Frame.io or Basecamp
+5 more capabilities
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 Workflow at 41/100.
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