You Don't Have to Pay $79/mo for Website Feedback
What changed at Markup.io, and what to use instead
If you used Markup.io before 2025, you probably liked it. Paste a URL, share a link, clients click to leave comments. Simple, effective, reasonably priced. No complaints.
Then two things happened: the free plan disappeared, and Pro jumped from $29 to $79 a month. That's a 172% increase, which is the kind of math that makes you check whether you accidentally upgraded to something you didn't ask for.
For a lot of freelancers, small agencies, and solo designers, that pricing change turned a no-brainer into a line item that costs more than their hosting, email, and project management tools combined. So people started looking for alternatives.
This is one of them.
What Markup.io got right
Credit where it's due: Markup.io nailed the core interaction. Paste a URL, get a shareable canvas, click to comment. No browser extension, no client onboarding, no account for reviewers. That pattern — "just send them a link and let them click on the page" — is genuinely the right way to collect visual feedback. The rest of the industry spent years overcomplicating it.
The problem was never the product. The problem is that $79 a month is a lot of money for clicking on a website and typing "make this bigger."
What dot. does differently
dot. starts from the same idea — paste a URL, get a shareable link, reviewers click anywhere to pin a comment, no account for them — but 2it diverges in a few places that matter.
It costs $12 a month
Individual plan, unlimited projects, unlimited feedback. Reviewers are always free and never need an account. There's a genuine free tier with one project and feedback on three screens, no credit card, no 72-hour window, no expiration.
For context: Markup.io at $79, Pastel's Studio plan at $119, and Marker.io starting at $59 all charge more for roughly the same core feature. Ruttl charges per user, which means the bill scales every time you add a teammate or a client who needs access.
dot. charges the person who owns the projects. Everyone else — the reviewers, the clients, the stakeholders — uses it free, forever. That's not a trial limitation; it's the model.
Every comment carries context
When someone leaves feedback on dot., the comment comes with a snapshot of exactly what they were looking at — the button, the card, the section — plus their browser, OS, screen size, and device pixel ratio.
So "this looks broken on mobile" arrives with a screenshot of the broken thing and the exact device it was broken on. No follow-up email asking "what browser are you on?" No twenty-minute Slack thread triangulating which page, which section, which viewport. The comment is the bug report.
It works on AI-built prototypes, not just live sites
This is where dot. and Markup.io stop being comparable. Markup.io reviews live websites. dot. reviews those too — but it also hosts prototypes built in Claude, Lovable, v0, or Cursor and gives them a live, shareable URL without a deploy step.
If your workflow involves building something in an AI tool and showing it to a client before it has a domain, Markup.io assumes you've already deployed it somewhere. dot. is the deployment and the feedback layer. One step instead of two.
Feedback flows back into your AI
This is the part nothing else does. dot. connects to AI tools through MCP, which means a reviewer's pinned comments can travel back into the tool that built the project. Tell Claude to pull your dot. feedback and fix what reviewers flagged, and it reads each comment — with the element snapshot and environment context — and regenerates the build.
Client says "make the hero bigger." Claude makes the hero bigger. No copy-pasting feedback into a chat window, no translating a screenshot into instructions. The comment becomes the fix.
The honest limitations
dot. is younger than Markup.io and doesn't have everything the older tool built over years. Specifically:
No Jira, Trello, Asana, or Slack integrations yet. If your workflow depends on feedback auto-creating tickets in a PM tool, dot. doesn't do that today. You'd export manually.
No PDF or image annotation. dot. reviews live web pages and hosted prototypes. If you review static files, that's a different tool.
Simpler permissions model. Markup.io has team roles, workspaces, and granular access. dot. has owner, team members, and everyone-else-is-a-reviewer. For a 2-person agency that's plenty; for a 40-person department it might not be.
If any of those are dealbreakers, they're dealbreakers. Better to know now than after you've migrated.
When dot. is the right move
You're a designer, product manager, or even developer. You review work with clients. You've been on Markup.io's free plan or the old $29 Pro and the jump to $79 made you blink. You want the same paste-a-URL, click-to-comment simplicity without the per-seat math and without the price that assumes you have an enterprise budget.
Or you build with AI tools and need the whole loop: build it, host it, collect feedback, fix it — without stitching four products together.
Either way, $12 a month. Reviewers free. No 72-hour window. No expiration.
Switching from Markup.io, or just starting fresh? dot. gives you a link where anyone can pin feedback on the live page — no account, no install, $12/mo flat. Get started free →
