# You Don't Have to Pay $79/mo for Website Feedback

* * *

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.](https://leaveadot.com) 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.*](https://leaveadot.com) *gives you a link where anyone can pin feedback on the live page — no account, no install, $12/mo flat.* [*Get started free →*](https://leaveadot.com)