Build Test Lab
← All landing-page-v1 runs

landing-page-v1 · run Oct 21, 2026

Framer: 7/8 criteria met

We built the same booking app in Framer that we build in every other builder. Tested Oct 21, 2026 against landing-page-v1.

Criteria met7 of 8
Time to a working deployment13 minutes
Prompts used1
Cost$0.00 (free plan; no per-build credits shown)
Tested onOct 21, 2026

What passed

CriterionResult
L1 — Studio name, intro and all three services with pricesPass
L2 — Contact form with name, email and messagePass
L3 — Form submits, or explains visibly why it cannotPass
L4 — No horizontal scroll at 390 pxPass
L5 — Public URL reachable without loginPass
L6 — Navigation link to the contact section worksPass
L7 — Footer has address and opening hours in place (placeholders allowed)Pass
L8 — No visible placeholder text on the published pageFail

What broke

Artifacts

Notes

Framer is the only tool that stopped and asked before building: two questions about visual direction and about how to handle missing details, then it built. It published by itself to a random subdomain (salmon-porcupine-216074.framer.app) and offered a free custom domain. The page holds all five sections, the three prices are visible without clicking, and 390 px has no horizontal overflow — the agent claimed the same and it held up. Two honest caveats: the address and opening hours are left as visible placeholders, and the form shows 'Message sent' although no recipient has been configured, so the success message is unverified. Different spec than the app builders (landing-page-v1), because Framer has no backend. Scored against all eight landing criteria after the spec was aligned to the same eight-point scale as the booking tests.

Related answers


How we test and what we do not measure: methodology. Every builder against this brief: landing-page-v1.

Head to head: Framer vs 10Web · Framer vs Durable