Pick by the kind of file you review most. Website feedback tools let people comment on live pages, video review tools suit cuts and edits, and dedicated proofing tools handle formal approvals across many file types. Whichever you choose, make sure it records who approved which version and when.
Three kinds of work usually need comments in a creative or marketing team: static designs and PDFs, live websites, and video. Markup.io covers the first two, which is why people leaving it often end up weighing a different tool for each. Below are eight proofing and review tools, in no particular order, with the full list first.
The eight, alphabetically
Listed A to Z. Every line reflects how the vendor talks about its own product.
BugHerd
Best for: Web agencies whose clients leave feedback and bug reports by pointing at the page and commenting, which the vendor says makes client feedback easy; a trial is named.
Frame.io
Best for: Video and creative teams wanting files, feedback and collaborators on one secure platform, as the vendor describes it; a free plan is named.
Marker.io
Best for: Developers and product teams who want website feedback and bug reports sent straight into Jira, Trello, Asana or GitHub; the vendor names a free plan.
Pastel
Best for: Designers, developers and agencies who want quick visual feedback on live websites and faster client sign-off, says the vendor; a free trial is named.
ProofHub
Best for: Teams that would rather keep projects, tasks and communication in one place than run a separate proofing app; the vendor positions it as project management software.
ReviewStudio
Best for: Creative teams that want a faster review and approval process across all kinds of creative work, which is the vendor's own pitch; a free trial is named.
Wipster
Best for: Video producers who share cuts, gather feedback and manage reviews in one place so finished work goes out sooner, per the vendor.
Ziflow
Best for: Marketing and creative operations teams wanting automated review workflows across a very wide range of file types, with integrations, as the vendor describes it; a trial is named.
Comparison at a glance
| Tool | Category | Good for |
|---|---|---|
| BugHerd | Website feedback | Clients pinning comments and bugs on live websites |
| Frame.io | Creative collaboration | Video teams keeping files, feedback and people together |
| Marker.io | Website bug reporting | Sending site feedback straight to Jira, Trello or GitHub |
| Pastel | Website annotation | Designers collecting comments directly on live sites |
| ProofHub | Project management | Teams wanting reviews inside a wider project tool |
| ReviewStudio | Online proofing | Structured review and approval across creative work |
| Wipster | Video review | Sharing video drafts and gathering comments |
| Ziflow | Online proofing | Approval workflows across many file types |
Which kind of file are you reviewing?
For live websites, BugHerd, Pastel and Marker.io let people comment directly on a page. They differ in who they're aimed at: client-friendly commenting, design sign-off, or bug reports sent into a developer's issue tracker.
For video, Wipster and Frame.io are built around sharing cuts and gathering comments on them. If video is most of your work, start with these rather than a general proofing tool.
Don't forget social and ad creative. Those files are small, but they often need several people to sign off quickly, so test how fast a reviewer can open a file on a phone, leave a comment and approve it. If that takes more than a few taps, you'll be chasing approvals by message again.
For mixed creative work with formal approvals, Ziflow and ReviewStudio are dedicated proofing tools. ProofHub is different again: a project management tool, worth a look if you'd rather keep reviews next to tasks than in a separate app.
Want AI doing the heavy lifting in your marketing?
I build the systems that handle the boring 80 percent, so you get your week back. Done properly, with the human kept in.
Comments are easy; approvals are harder
Markup.io's own homepage presents it as a design collaboration tool for visual feedback, where teams annotate screenshots, PDFs and designs together in real time. That's the commenting half of the job, and almost every tool here handles it.
The half that separates them is approval. Who signed off, on which version, and when? If a client disputes a change later, can you show the trail? So when you shortlist, test how reviewers comment on files and how approvals are tracked from first draft to final sign-off. Tools in this field split by who they're built for and how much you set up yourself, so run the same real job through each.
It's also worth checking what happens when a new version arrives. A good review tool keeps the last round's comments visible, so reviewers can see whether their changes were made without hunting through old emails. If it doesn't, every round starts from scratch.
Advice for teams that chase sign-offs
Choose the tool your reviewers will use without being told twice. Clients and senior stakeholders rarely log in to anything new, so check whether they can comment from a link without creating an account. That single detail decides whether feedback arrives inside the tool or back in your inbox.
If your work is mostly websites, a page-commenting tool will save the most time. If it's mostly video or regulated marketing material, a proofing tool with clear approval stages is worth the extra setting up.
Think about volume, too. A team that reviews a few designs a month can live with a simple tool. A team pushing dozens of assets through legal, brand and client sign-off each week needs stages, deadlines and reminders, or reviews will stall in someone's inbox. For more ideas, see my list of creative project management tools and my guide to simplifying social media approvals.
Keep an approval trail you can find later
- Name versions clearly, so nobody approves an old draft by mistake.
- Record who approved each version and when, inside the tool rather than in email.
- Export final approvals for client jobs and store them with the project files.
- Close old review links once a job is done, so outdated drafts don't circulate.
- Agree with each client who has the final say before the first round starts.
Do you make online proofing software? Tool makers can ask to be considered for a featured place on this list.
Want your tool on this list? Featured spots and reviews here are paid partnerships. Here's how to partner with me.
Frequently asked questions
What is online proofing?
It's reviewing creative work, such as designs, PDFs, web pages or video, in a browser, where reviewers leave comments on the file and approvers sign it off.
Can clients give feedback without an account?
Some tools let reviewers comment from a shared link, others need a login. Check this first if your reviewers are clients, because it affects how much feedback arrives in the tool.
Do I need separate tools for video and design review?
Not always, but video review works best when comments are tied to moments in the clip. If video is a big part of your work, test that specifically.
How do I move past projects out of my old tool?
Download final files and any approval records you need for clients. Most teams leave old comments behind and start new projects in the new tool.
Is a project management tool enough for proofing?
For small teams with simple sign-offs, it can be. Once you need formal stages, several approvers or a clear audit trail, a dedicated proofing tool is easier.
