Skip to main content

Figma Make Ai Credit Limits Not Feasible

  • March 10, 2026
  • 112 replies
  • 2229 views

Show first post

112 replies

  • March 12, 2026

I believe the most fair way to handle this, Figma Make team, is to allow the user in the admin settings to enter their own API keys for their own models, that way the burden of AI model cost is not on you and you will get a recurrent income form supplying the platform, the burden of consumption will then fall upon the consumer as they consume.

[Moderator note: This post was merged from “Figma Make Credit system needs immediate remediation” into "Figma Make Ai Credit Limits Not Feasible" on 12-Mar-2026.]


  • March 12, 2026

I've just done 5 Prompts to fix a dark mode/Light mode issue and its exceeded 5000 Credits, this is non-workable

 


  • March 12, 2026

to illustrate my point, single prompt

 


Ryan_Anderson
  • New Participant
  • March 12, 2026

100% the limits will make it unusable for power users in Enterprise licensing where our companies build complex software.
Even just focusing on building up the complexity of a feature component by component to limit hallucinations sans visual design, I have over over 13K of credits used compared of the 3.5k limit that will be implemented. And that is all for ONE PROJECT where I generally have 3-4 items to be working on in parallel.

Meantime, the bulk of our seats have sub 100 credits used.

There likely are a few things needed.

  1. Increase limits
  2. Allow credits from 1 seat to be leveraged / moved to another by admins, or at least to a pool that can be opened to power users
  3. We also have Claude licenses at work, allow those credits to be used as Claude is the engine behind your Make files, etc…

 

Otherwise us power users (at least those of us with code experience) will be forced to shift to building in more of a Claude Code model and you’ll lose more users and seat income as we opt for productivity.


Maxter
  • New Member
  • March 12, 2026

I would like to iterate on the previous comments. I am a solo product manager who uses Figma Make extensively since January, and it allows me to not just create a design for my developer, but basically build the frontend code. Without the limit enforcement, I find it extremely useful tool which allows us to ship fast. But the estimated cost is ridicously expensive. If Figma won’t change either the included credits or the credit price, I am definitely looking for a new tool. Even the well-known pricy claude code is much less expensive. 


Jack_Taylor2
  • New Member
  • March 12, 2026

 

  1. Allow credits from 1 seat to be leveraged / moved to another by admins, or at least to a pool that can be opened to power users

This needs to happen at minimum, makes no sense that an organisation pays for credits that will go unused by one user while another runs out - and 3k credits turns Figma Make back into a toy that will go unused


dbagchee
  • New Member
  • March 12, 2026

Agree, control over AI credit allocation is important for teams to get the best utilization out of credits we are paying for.


Marcus Castle

I started using Figma Make for a Customer Portal prototype, burned through the credits in now time. It’s not feasible to use for design iterations. Will have to look for a different product. Sure, we can all play ‘pretend’ and say “You’re not using them in the correct way”, but let’s be honest, the current limits and costs make it unworkable. Shame, I actually thought Figma Make was a good tool outside of the AI Credit Limits


audria
  • New Member
  • March 13, 2026

I completely agree — I only started using it about three months ago. It’s an incredible tool, but with these limits it quickly becomes restrictive and expensive for people outside of large organizations.

I’m already looking into alternatives, since 3,000 credits barely covers three days of work. I also have to note that a huge amount of credits get burned just from the back-and-forth. I feel like half of my credits go toward correcting mistakes that Figma Make generates from its own assumptions.

I really hope the team at Figma reconsiders this, especially for freelancers who don’t have the budgets of big companies.


Nebutek member

3000 credits are the average required to create a simple CRUD table, without being so exploratory in terms of UI… With that 3000 limits this tools wont make any sense at all. I perceived an increase of design accuracy with the new model Opus 4.6 but the output still is not as good as any AI powered IDE.

The Design System Library is not nailing the designs and a lot of prompting is to fix those mismatches, even knowing that this code is not usable for devs if you already have real code library.

Could be nice allow users to use Claude Code MCP to bring from your codebase your components and use them to create the prototypes, or something.


Josh22
  • New Participant
  • March 13, 2026

There is a larger problem occurring now that makes credit limits even more useless

Figma outages OR changes to their runtime code have caused multiple projects to fail to run on open for me today. I know they were experiencing issues yesterday. I cannot open ~10 projects with being blasted with a dozen errors that did not exist until today.

If a Figma-introduced system-wide runtime change suddenly causes existing files to fail to open, throwing React/Vite errors, or require code exploration to fix, then the burden has shifted from design tool with code assistance to you are now responsible for framework/runtime maintenance, which is going to cost a lot of credits. LOTS. Why? Because this is not a real dev environment and we are DESIGNERS first. Now I’m using credits to figure out why I can’t run the project that worked yesterday but not today.

Claude suggested there are React errors due to a recent React update that occurred in the backend of Figma. 100 credits just to tell me this. And I have no other proof because we don’t control this aspect of a sandbox environment.


Mandy_Shares
  • New Member
  • March 13, 2026

FYI from my Figma rep last night:

“We identified an issue that affected how AI credit usage was reported for Full seat users above their limits. After reviewing [your company’s] data, your actual monthly usage is higher than what we previously discussed.”

Looks like it may be even worse than we thought 😡


TechDemocracy LLC

Currently, Toast consumes approximately 64 credits per generation request. With the available 3000 credits, we can generate only 10–20 pages of content, after which the credit limit is exhausted and we must wait until the next monthly cycle for the credits to reset.

Given this limitation, it might be more efficient to purchase multiple Figma accounts (for example, around 100 accounts) and use them for generation instead of relying on the pay-as-you-go credit system.

[Moderator note: This post was merged from “AI credits: what happens when we reach the limit?” into "Figma Make Ai Credit Limits Not Feasible" on 16-Mar-2026.]


Ahmad Hassan
  • New Member
  • March 15, 2026

Exactly. 3000 credits are nothing when it comes to iterating. 


Maxter
  • New Member
  • March 15, 2026

I’ve burnt 34000 credits in 4 days. Having 3000 credits/month is ridiculously low. That would have been $900. With this rate, in a month I would use almost 300.000 credits which is 9k USD. I am leaving Figma on March 18th. 


Maxter
  • New Member
  • March 15, 2026

I’ve burnt 34000 credits in 4 days. Having 3000 credits/month is ridiculously low. That would have been $900. With this rate, in a month I would use almost 300.000 credits which is 9k USD. I am leaving Figma on March 18th. 


AaronUX
  • New Member
  • March 16, 2026

I’m writing as a paying Professional-plan user who has been using Figma Make heavily to build and maintain a portfolio website. I’ve found Make genuinely useful, fast, and creatively enabling, which is exactly why the current AI credit model is so concerning to me.

My main issue is not just that limits exist. It is that the current system makes usage feel unpredictable, punitive, and poorly aligned with how a conversational creative tool actually works.

In practice, Figma Make is not a one-shot utility. It is iterative by nature. It often takes multiple rounds to clarify intent, correct misunderstandings, fix bugs, refine interactions, or recover from mistakes in the output. That is normal use, not abuse. When every clarification, correction, retry, and follow-up consumes credits, the tool starts to feel less like part of my subscription and more like a metered gamble.

That creates a few major problems for me:

  • It discourages natural creative exploration, which is exactly where a tool like Make is most valuable.

  • It penalizes users for model misinterpretation, failed attempts, and normal iteration.

  • It makes cost difficult to predict in advance, which creates anxiety around using the tool freely or conversationally.

  • It even discourages basic politeness or rapport in the interface, because every extra message can feel like a waste of limited credits.

  • It is especially frustrating in a design workflow, where iteration is not optional - it is the work.

I recently used almost all of my AI credits in about one morning of legitimate work updating my personal site. That is not because I was using the tool irresponsibly. It is because I was working with it the way it seems designed to be used: interactively, creatively, and through refinement.

I understand that AI features have real costs. But as implemented, this system feels too opaque and too restrictive for a tool that is still imperfect and often requires multiple attempts to get to a usable result. Charging per-use-like costs for a workflow that inherently depends on retries, interpretation, and debugging makes the tool feel stressful rather than empowering.

I also want to specifically suggest a flat monthly pricing option for individual Professional users. The rest of the Professional plan is already structured as a straightforward subscription, and that model fits how creative tools are normally used. Right now, the absence of a predictable flat-fee option for solo users feels like a major gap.

A flat monthly AI option for individual users would make far more sense than forcing people into an unpredictable credit system for normal use. I understand charging more for heavy enterprise usage, large teams, or unusually high-volume workflows. But for independent professionals, job seekers, freelancers, and contractors, the current structure makes Make feel financially risky to rely on, even while already paying for a Professional seat.

What makes this especially frustrating is that other subscription products manage to absorb variation in individual usage without turning normal engagement into a stressful meter. Some people use a service lightly, others use it heavily, and the flat monthly price is part of what makes the product feel usable and trustworthy. For a creative assistant built into a design platform, that kind of predictability matters.

I’d strongly encourage Figma to consider changes such as:

  • a flat monthly AI option for individual Professional users

  • more generous included credits for active Make users

  • clearer per-action cost visibility before a request is sent

  • lower-cost or free handling for retries, corrections, and failed outputs

  • some form of session-based or workflow-based pricing rather than charging every conversational turn so aggressively

  • better protection against burning credits on normal back-and-forth required to make the tool usable

I’m sharing this because I like the product and want it to succeed. Make has been one of the most useful parts of Figma for me recently. But the current credit model makes me hesitant to rely on it, and that is a bad outcome for both users and the product.


DonDesigns
  • New Member
  • March 16, 2026

I’m a professional designer and my company is spending time this week exploring alternatives to Figma Make since we can easily hit 30k in 3-4 work days. Did Figma think companies would be willing to pay that level of a premium when other options exist for so much less?

The bulk of those credits are spent correcting issues that Figma Make itself introduces, and there are some days where their AI clearly just doesn’t work at all, so even more credits get used up. I’ve also had it use a crazy amount of tokens just to resize something very small, by a few pixels. 
 


jeffk
  • New Member
  • March 17, 2026
In 1 hour, all of my tokens were used up for the entire month. This token usage model will make Figma Make unusable. The minimum that I see is 150 tokens per request. Is this correct? It should be more like 1 to 3 tokens per request.

 


  • March 17, 2026

Im out, moved all front-ends to vercel, kept the supabase backends, GitHub holds the repos, and im using opencode to do the prompts, its quick, accurate and i have made 10 times the progress in 24 hours then what i did with Figma, there are alternatives, the cost point is very different as well as the ability to use any models i want without restriction. Its actually made the deploys much more efficient with extended error checking.


Alente
  • New Member
  • March 17, 2026

You've got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. We are giving figma valuable inputs on the user side. Sad to say they are not hearing it. I am trying claude code today, make was such a fine tool but I think its just in the wrong company i guess.


martijnmartens

Got a mail from Figma about the AI credits limits. Obviously, smart move, knew this was coming. 

However, I have a couple of things here that rubs me the wrong way. Hope this reaches the higher-ups:

Additional credits are too expensive compared to the pricing/license model. 

  1. Credits are now per full seat. I have 11 full seats, only 2 or 3 of them are using the credits. I does not make sense to buy additional credits when I have about 8 full seats with 3000+ ai credits that are not being used.
    1. Let us just share the credits we have across seats, instead of us sharing login details to maximize the credits.

    2. If this is not the case, its better to buy just buy more full seats instead of credits. License for a full seat is 16 pm with 3000 credits, 5000 credits are 120 p/m? So additional credits are 4.5x more expensive then just buying full seats... This does not make any sense.

  2. In the full seat, I'm paying for a lot I don't use, but then have to pay additional for Ai credits that I do need. Can there please be just a design license? The only thing we use is Figma design and Figma make. We would like to only purchase that, we don't need the rest. Its like buying a house with 10 rooms but I'm only using 2. But then you make these 2 rooms more expensive, but I cannot get rid of the 8 rooms I dont use.

Update: after using figma make for 1.5 hours. All the credits on my full seat are gone. Product is not ready yet. This makes Figma make completely useless honestly. 

Fix this…...


Isabelle Peng

Im out, moved all front-ends to vercel, kept the supabase backends, GitHub holds the repos, and im using opencode to do the prompts, its quick, accurate and i have made 10 times the progress in 24 hours then what i did with Figma, there are alternatives, the cost point is very different as well as the ability to use any models i want without restriction. Its actually made the deploys much more efficient with extended error checking.

@kitwalker14   I was planning the same.. how do you manage the image bedding issue from Figma? the links in repo apparently will never work if directing to figma still.. 
 


Isabelle Peng

This credits hoax is going to driving the users away, I’m pro annual sub, if this is not workable, I will start solely on opencode myself, and downgrade my sub in figma.   
Totally disappointed! 
They are somehow losing money I get it, and want to monetize as much as possible, but this is going to backfire. 
💀💩


Isabelle Peng

I’m writing as a paying Professional-plan user who has been using Figma Make heavily to build and maintain a portfolio website. I’ve found Make genuinely useful, fast, and creatively enabling, which is exactly why the current AI credit model is so concerning to me.

My main issue is not just that limits exist. It is that the current system makes usage feel unpredictable, punitive, and poorly aligned with how a conversational creative tool actually works.

In practice, Figma Make is not a one-shot utility. It is iterative by nature. It often takes multiple rounds to clarify intent, correct misunderstandings, fix bugs, refine interactions, or recover from mistakes in the output. That is normal use, not abuse. When every clarification, correction, retry, and follow-up consumes credits, the tool starts to feel less like part of my subscription and more like a metered gamble.

That creates a few major problems for me:

  • It discourages natural creative exploration, which is exactly where a tool like Make is most valuable.

  • It penalizes users for model misinterpretation, failed attempts, and normal iteration.

  • It makes cost difficult to predict in advance, which creates anxiety around using the tool freely or conversationally.

  • It even discourages basic politeness or rapport in the interface, because every extra message can feel like a waste of limited credits.

  • It is especially frustrating in a design workflow, where iteration is not optional - it is the work.

I recently used almost all of my AI credits in about one morning of legitimate work updating my personal site. That is not because I was using the tool irresponsibly. It is because I was working with it the way it seems designed to be used: interactively, creatively, and through refinement.

I understand that AI features have real costs. But as implemented, this system feels too opaque and too restrictive for a tool that is still imperfect and often requires multiple attempts to get to a usable result. Charging per-use-like costs for a workflow that inherently depends on retries, interpretation, and debugging makes the tool feel stressful rather than empowering.

I also want to specifically suggest a flat monthly pricing option for individual Professional users. The rest of the Professional plan is already structured as a straightforward subscription, and that model fits how creative tools are normally used. Right now, the absence of a predictable flat-fee option for solo users feels like a major gap.

A flat monthly AI option for individual users would make far more sense than forcing people into an unpredictable credit system for normal use. I understand charging more for heavy enterprise usage, large teams, or unusually high-volume workflows. But for independent professionals, job seekers, freelancers, and contractors, the current structure makes Make feel financially risky to rely on, even while already paying for a Professional seat.

What makes this especially frustrating is that other subscription products manage to absorb variation in individual usage without turning normal engagement into a stressful meter. Some people use a service lightly, others use it heavily, and the flat monthly price is part of what makes the product feel usable and trustworthy. For a creative assistant built into a design platform, that kind of predictability matters.

I’d strongly encourage Figma to consider changes such as:

  • a flat monthly AI option for individual Professional users

  • more generous included credits for active Make users

  • clearer per-action cost visibility before a request is sent

  • lower-cost or free handling for retries, corrections, and failed outputs

  • some form of session-based or workflow-based pricing rather than charging every conversational turn so aggressively

  • better protection against burning credits on normal back-and-forth required to make the tool usable

I’m sharing this because I like the product and want it to succeed. Make has been one of the most useful parts of Figma for me recently. But the current credit model makes me hesitant to rely on it, and that is a bad outcome for both users and the product.

@AaronUX  well said, I hope you are heard by Figma team