adobealternatives.com

Beats 65%.

of 690 entry-page captures we’ve measured.

adobealternatives.com desktop capture of the first page

Something wrong?

Scanned 2026-11-02Content

Below the fold

Section by section.

Each part of the page, with our check beside it.

  1. adobealternatives.com Hero section
    Hero · their words: “ArtCraft Adobe Clones and Open-Source Creative Alternatives”
    Hero · 2% to 15% down the page

    Our check

    Not measured

    Not measured for this section.

    This capture has no element locations, so no check is placed here. Measured: 2 buttons and links, “Explore the apps” and “What does “ArtCraft Adobe clones” mean?”, 61 words. Absent, not scored 0.

  2. adobealternatives.com Content section
    Content · their words: “ArtCraft Adobe clones and related open-source tools”
    Content · 16% to 49% down the page

    Our check

    Not measured

    Not measured for this section.

    This capture has no element locations, so no check is placed here. Measured: 6 buttons and links, “Explore PhotoCraft ↗” and “Explore VectorCraft ↗”, 342 words. Absent, not scored 0.

  3. adobealternatives.com Comparison section
    Comparison · their words: “Compare the selected tools”
    Comparison · 49% to 63% down the page

    Our check

    Not measured

    Not measured for this section.

    This capture has no element locations, so no check is placed here. Measured: 8 buttons and links, “Explore PhotoCraft ↗” and “Explore VectorCraft ↗”, a table, 143 words. Absent, not scored 0.

  4. adobealternatives.com FAQ section
    FAQ · their words: “Questions about the selected tools”
    FAQ · 76% to 85% down the page

    Our check

    Not measured

    Not measured for this section.

    This capture has no element locations, so no check is placed here. Measured: 32 words. Absent, not scored 0.

Sections of Homepage / Lander. Crops are portions of the page, shown beside our analysis. Measured by Roentgen 1.35.0 on 2026-11-02. A section with nothing detected is absent, never scored 0.

Something wrong?

What sets it apart

adobealternatives.com does 1 thing few peers do.

Each one is run by under 30% of 256 content funnels. Rarest first.

  1. Us-vs-them comparison

    Rarity

    Only 2%.

    of 256 content funnels have us-vs-them comparison. This site is one of them.

    2 of 100 are inside the rope. The other 98 wait outside.

    5 of 256 content funnels evaluated. 1 pip = 1%, drawn to the nearest pip.
    adobealternatives.com Homepage / Lander capture, where it does this
    Where adobealternatives.com does it · Homepage / Lander: “comparison table: Tool · Workflow · Platforms · Project status · Official app”

    FOUND. Only 2% of 256 content funnels do this. adobealternatives.com does. 5 of 256 content funnels.

What it skips

Nothing most peers do is missing.

4 tactics adobealternatives.com could still add. Most peers skip them too, so each one would stand out.

Absence is a measurement, not a recommendation: we do not know why a tactic is missing, whether it belongs here, or whether adding it would change anything. Where a walk stopped early, a tactic living deeper would also read as not detected.

How it ranks

Where it ranks.

Peer rank

Beats 65%.

of 690 entry-page captures.

beats 65% of 690 entry-page captures. 1 column = 5% of the cohort, drawn to the nearest column.

What we found

What we found.

Free to read.

What they say

“ArtCraft Adobe Clones and Open-Source Creative Alternatives”

  • Browse alternatives
  • Explore the apps

How it’s built

22 UX checks · 16 pass · 2 need work · 2 notes · 2 not measured

Pass

Text contrast (WCAG AA)

100% of measurable text passes WCAG AA.

Pass

Mobile viewport

Responsive viewport meta is present.

Pass

Line height

Body line-height is 1.65×.

Pass

Language declared

html[lang] is set for screen readers.

Pass

Image alt text

All 39 content images carry alt text.

Pass

Named controls

Every sampled button and link has an accessible name.

Show the other 16 checks
Pass

Link text

No sampled link uses generic text such as “click here” or “learn more”.

Pass

Heading structure

The landing page has exactly one <h1>.

Pass

Heading levels

No heading skips a level (no <h2> followed directly by an <h4>).

Pass

Page title

The landing page has a <title> (57 characters). Whether it is descriptive is not judged.

Pass

Skip link

A same-page “skip to content” link was found.

Pass

Label in name

No sampled control has an aria-label that omits its visible text.

Pass

Horizontal overflow

The page does not scroll horizontally at 1440px wide.

Pass

Render-blocking resources

1 stylesheet/script in <head> block first paint.

Pass

Landmark regions

The page has header, main and footer landmark regions.

Pass

Keyboard reachability

No element that looks clickable was found that keyboard users cannot reach.

Note

Line length

11 paragraphs run past ~95 characters per line.

Note

Oversized images

1 image is shipped at more than 2x the width shown.

Needs work

Body text size

Smallest sampled text is 12px, below the 13px floor this check uses.

Needs work

Tap-target size (mobile)

15 of 64 interactive targets are under 44×44px on mobile.

Not checked

Page weight

At least 0.0 MB across 3 measurable resources, but 40 cross-origin resources did not expose a size. The true weight cannot be determined from the page.

Not checked

Largest paint element

The browser did not report a largest painted element for this capture.

Seen on the page

The sections of adobealternatives.com where each tactic we found shows up, cut from the capture.

  • Us-vs-them comparison1 crop
    • adobealternatives.com Comparison section, Homepage / Lander
      Comparison · Homepage / Lander
  • FAQ / objection handling1 crop
    • adobealternatives.com FAQ section, Homepage / Lander
      FAQ · Homepage / Lander

How it looks

Arial for headlines and text. 4 colours measured.

Worth borrowing

Us-vs-them comparison: Only 2% of 256 content funnels do this. adobealternatives.com does.

How it sells

Free names. Plus proves.

3 of 7 selling tactics found: Us-vs-them comparison, FAQ / objection handling, Trusted-by logo wall. 4 not found.

Free · you see

  • Which tactics it uses
  • Which 4 it lacks
    • Press / "as seen in"Only 12% of 254 content funnels do this. Opportunity
    • Usage / adoption proofOnly 4% of 169 content funnels do this. Opportunity
    • Proof above the foldOnly 3% of 256 content funnels do this. Opportunity
    • Scarcity / urgency copyOnly 0% of 254 content funnels do this. Opportunity

    Absence is a measurement, not a recommendation: we do not know why a tactic is missing, whether it belongs here, or whether adding it would change anything. Where a walk stopped early, a tactic living deeper would also read as not detected.

  • Every UX check

Plus · $29/mo

  • The proof behind each tactic
  • Who has what it lacks
  • Every word, colour share and type scale

Us-vs-them comparison · the evidence

Plus · $29/mo

FAQ / objection handling · the evidence

Plus · $29/mo

Trusted-by logo wall · the evidence

Plus · $29/mo

Put your site next to this one.

Plus

Proof for all 3 tactics.

The exact evidence for each one we found. Open a row to read it.

Us-vs-them comparison · the evidence

Plus · $29/mo

FAQ / objection handling · the evidence

Plus · $29/mo

Trusted-by logo wall · the evidence

Plus · $29/mo

Plus

Who has what it lacks.

For each gap, the peers that have it.

Press / "as seen in" · who has it

Plus · $29/mo

Usage / adoption proof · who has it

Plus · $29/mo

Proof above the fold · who has it

Plus · $29/mo

Scarcity / urgency copy · who has it

Plus · $29/mo

Plus

Every word they use.

Buttons, links and prices, in full.

Buttons and links · 2 on the first page

Plus · $29/mo

Plus

Colour share and type scale.

How much of the page each colour covers, and every size in the scale.

Colour share · 4 colours measured

Plus · $29/mo

Type scale · 12 sizes

Plus · $29/mo

UXXRAY+

Open every locked row.

$29/mo. Every row above, with the evidence behind it.

Every figure on this page was read off the live site by Roentgen 1.35.0 on 2026-11-02, a script that reads page structure, computed CSS and matched text. No AI judgment, nothing estimated, and a capture’s numbers stay as read.

How this was measured

Detection coverage, not a verdict. A low count means we did not detect those checks, not that the funnel is weak.

Walk 5 links seen, 5 walkable, and 0 matched a funnel step. If this funnel continues past the entry page, we did not reach it — everything below is measured from the entry page alone.

Absence is a measurement, not a recommendation: we do not know why a tactic is missing, whether it belongs here, or whether adding it would change anything. Where a walk stopped early, a tactic living deeper would also read as not detected.

Read the method · JSON bundle · Markdown brief · Design tokens · llms.txt

Site report · adobealternatives.com · Compare

← Back to the adobealternatives.com report

Compare · step 1 of 2

Who goes next to adobealternatives.com?

Pick any site we have measured, or x-ray a new one. Both sit side by side at the end.

This site

adobealternatives.com

The other site

Comparing your own site? Type it above. If we have not measured it, we x-ray it live.

adobealternatives.com

On this page

Section by section.

The bands the crawler found on this page, top to bottom. Pick one.