Weavy vs ComfyUI: Which AI Image Workflow Tool?

In Weavy vs ComfyUI, Weavy (now Figma Weave) is the faster way for a creative team to start producing AI images and video, and ComfyUI is the better base for a repeatable production pipeline you control. The deciding factor is who inside your business will own the workflow once the novelty wears off.

TL;DR: Figma Weave is a hosted, collaborative canvas with more than 20 image, video and 3D models, priced from free to US$60 per user per month for teams. ComfyUI is free GPL-3.0 software you run on your own GPU, or on Comfy Cloud from US$20 a month (US$16 a month billed yearly): far more control, but it needs a technical owner. Teams already living in Figma should start with Weave. Teams with volume, brand-consistency or data-residency needs should build on ComfyUI.

What each tool actually is

Both tools let you build AI image and video production as a graph of connected nodes: a prompt feeds a model, the model feeds an upscaler, the upscaler feeds an editing step, and the chain can be saved and rerun. The similarity ends there.

Weavy is now Figma Weave. Figma announced the acquisition on 30 October 2025. Its Weave FAQ calls Figma Weave “the new name for Weavy”, available as a standalone product at weave.figma.com, with separate accounts, billing and credits from Figma Design. Figma says it will define its “longer-term plans over the next year”, so treat every figure here as a 30 September 2026 snapshot. You log in, pick from the models listed on its pricing page (Flux 2 Pro, Nano Banana Pro, Kling 3, Veo 3.1 and Runway Gen-4.5 among them) and pay in credits.

ComfyUI is open-source software. The project repository lists a GPL-3.0 licence, a desktop app for Windows and macOS, and support for NVIDIA, AMD, Intel Arc and Apple Silicon hardware. It runs open-weight models including Stable Diffusion, SDXL, Flux, Qwen Image, Wan and LTX-Video, plus a large ecosystem of community custom nodes. Comfy Org also sells a hosted version, Comfy Cloud, and its Partner Nodes let a workflow call closed models from providers such as OpenAI, Kling and Luma using prepaid credits.

Weavy vs ComfyUI head-to-head

All prices are US dollars as published. Neither vendor lists Australian dollar prices or states GST treatment on its pricing page, so check the invoice. For scale, ten Weave Team seats on monthly billing cost US$600 a month, against US$700 a month for a Comfy Cloud Team plan on monthly billing covering up to 50 members. The credit systems differ, so this says nothing about output per dollar.

When Weave wins

Weave suits a design or brand team that already lives in Figma and wants to move without asking IT for anything. There is no GPU to buy, no model to download, no Python environment to break. The Free plan gives 150 credits a month, five workflows and the image models: enough to test whether node-based generation suits the team. Video models start on paid plans.

It also wins on exploratory work: concept boards, social variants, and video tests across Veo, Kling and Runway side by side. ComfyUI can match that only through Partner Nodes and a separate credit balance with Comfy.

The trade-off: you rent a curated set of models on someone else’s terms. If Figma changes plans, credits or models, your workflows change with them.

When ComfyUI wins

ComfyUI wins when the same job runs hundreds of times and has to look the same every time. Take a product shot template for a 400-SKU catalogue (an illustrative case). You pin the seed, add a ControlNet to hold the composition, train a LoRA on your product or brand look, and the graph becomes a versioned asset you can rerun next quarter. Weave exposes far less of that machinery.

At volume the marginal cost favours ComfyUI too. Once you own a GPU, or rent one at Comfy’s published developer rates (US$4.54 an hour for an RTX PRO 6000, billed by the GPU second), an extra thousand images costs electricity or GPU time rather than platform credits. For confidential client material, a self-hosted install keeps every prompt and reference image inside your network.

The price is ownership. Someone has to maintain the install, fix custom nodes that break after updates, and know which licence each model file carries. Without a named owner, a tool like this ends up half-working on one person’s workstation. We see that far more often than the software itself failing.

Licensing, IP and the questions clients will ask

Commercial-use questions matter more than any feature here.

Start with model licences. [FLUX.1 [dev]](https://huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-dev) is released under the FLUX.1 [dev] Non-Commercial License, and [FLUX.2 [dev]](https://huggingface.co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-dev) under the FLUX Non-Commercial License. Both model cards say “generated outputs can be used for personal, scientific, and commercial purposes” as described in the licence, but the model itself is licensed for non-commercial use only. Black Forest Labs sells commercial self-hosting licences for organisations that need them. Weave says it provides “full commercial rights” as a platform, while noting that most, not all, of its models are cleared for commercial use, so check its model list for the ones you rely on.

Copyright is a separate problem. On 26 October 2025 the Attorney-General ruled out a text and data mining exception for AI training and said the government would explore how copyright law applies to material generated with AI. Until that work lands, existing law applies, and it requires a human author: in Telstra v Phone Directories [2010] FCAFC 149, the Full Federal Court found no copyright in directories compiled by a computerised process. Our reading: a raw generated image may give you little to enforce, while heavily directed and edited work stands on firmer ground. Get legal advice before promising a client exclusive ownership of AI-generated brand assets.

Privacy follows the data. The OAIC’s guidance on commercially available AI products says privacy obligations apply to personal information entered into an AI system, and recommends organisations not enter personal information, particularly sensitive information, into publicly available generative AI tools. Photos of real customers or staff push you toward self-hosting or a vendor contract you have actually read. Our AI vendor checklist lists the questions to ask first.

Who owns the pipeline?

Most businesses asking this question do not have a tooling problem. They have an ownership problem.

If you have a creative lead ready to experiment this week and nobody technical, start with Weave. A month on a paid plan will show what you actually need, for a few hundred US dollars at most.

If you have a repeatable content job, a technical owner (in-house or external) and a reason to keep data on your own infrastructure, build on ComfyUI and pick models whose licences you have read. Running both is a sensible end state: Weave for ideation, ComfyUI for the locked-down production graph.

Either way, the hours go into the workflow around the tool: briefs, approvals, file naming, asset storage and publishing. Connecting generation to those steps is an automation job, usually handled by the platforms in our n8n vs Zapier vs Make comparison. Weighing hosted model gateways too? See Higgsfield vs kie.ai vs fal.ai, or our best AI tools for small business in 2026.

If you want to know where automation would save the most time in your content workflow, the AI Quick-Win Audit is a fixed A$2,950 paid audit that maps the workflow, identifies automation opportunities and shows a live working demonstration. The fee is credited toward any build of A$10,000 or more commissioned within 3 months, and it starts with a free 30-minute fit call.

Choosing between Weavy and ComfyUI

Settle Weavy vs ComfyUI by naming the owner first, then the tool. Our AI tools and automation setup service covers the tooling decisions, and the wider AI and automation practice handles the automation around them. Contact us to book the free 30-minute fit call.

Frequently Asked Questions