Both tools start from the same place, a URL of a site you like, and end somewhere different. html.to.design ends in Figma. Enrichr ends in code, by way of an AI assistant. Pick the one that matches where your next hour of work happens.
The short version
Choose html.to.design when…
- You are redesigning, and the next step is moving boxes around in Figma.
- You need a design file of an existing site for a client presentation.
- The pages are behind a login and you want to capture them from your own browser.
Choose Enrichr when…
- The next step is code, written by Claude, Cursor or ChatGPT.
- The site’s motion matters: scroll effects, page transitions, GSAP timelines.
- It has WebGL or 3D that a static layer import can’t hold.
- You want the AI to stop guessing your design (why it guesses).
Going from a reference to working code with AI? The full workflow is in how to clone a website with Claude Code.
FAQ
Does Enrichr export to Figma?
No. Enrichr exports measurements and a rebuild brief for AI coding tools, plus an asset zip. For Figma layers, use html.to.design.
Does html.to.design capture animations?
Figma designs are static, so animations, scroll effects and WebGL do not carry over as motion. Enrichr records the timelines and shaders that actually ran.
Can I use both?
Yes. Import into Figma to redesign visually, and capture with Enrichr when you hand off to Claude or Cursor to build, so the code uses exact values and motion.
Which is better for cloning a website?
For a design file, html.to.design. For working code built by AI, Enrichr.