Clickable vs. code · format decision 2026
Clickable Prototype or Code Prototype? Decide in 4 minutes
Clickable Figma prototype or working code? The format choice decides weeks of effort and thousands of euros — and the answer is almost never „both“. We build both formats and show you when each pays off.
You have an idea, a rough sketch, and a gut feeling that it might work. Now the question: do we build a clickable Figma prototype or jump straight to something that actually runs?
This decision typically costs you between €3,500 and €15,000, one to four weeks — and in the wrong case your faith in the idea, because you answered the wrong question.
We've built both formats since founding. That's exactly why we have nothing to sell here — we recommend what fits your question. Below, the logic we use ourselves.
TL;DR — the 5 key points
- The question is never „which format is better?“ — but „which risk do we want to validate?“. The format follows from that.
- Desirability + usability → a clickable prototype is enough. Feasibility + viability → a code prototype is usually mandatory.
- A clickable prototype is always throwaway material. A code prototype goes to production with re-implementation — we design it that way.
- At decivo: Clickable Prototype from €3,500 (1–2 weeks), Code Prototype from €12,500 (a few days to 2 weeks).
- If you're unsure: a four-hour Innovation Workshop (from €7,500) clarifies the format including a mini-backlog. We recommend what fits the question — not what we like to sell.
What are we actually comparing?
Before we decide, we need to agree on what we're talking about. Clickable prototype and code prototype are often used interchangeably in marketing — but they are two very different tools.
Clickable Prototype
A clickable prototype is a set of static screens linked to feel like a real app. Tap „Book“ and it jumps to a confirmation screen — but nothing happens behind it. No database, no logic, no persistence. Tools: Figma, Sketch, Adobe XD.
- Strength: fast to build, cheap to change, perfect for user tests.
- Weakness: can't answer technical questions and never goes to production.
Code Prototype
A code prototype is a small working application with real logic, real data, and a real deploy on a secure URL. Click „Book“ and something is written to a database. Tools: Next.js, Supabase, Vercel — augmented by AI tooling like Cursor and Claude Code.
- Strength: shows technical feasibility, surfaces edge cases, can become production with re-implementation.
- Weakness: more expensive and slower than a clickable — and overkill for pure acceptance questions.
Where it sits: wireframe, MVP, final product
A wireframe is static (no linking). An MVP is live, has paying users or a conversion target, and is widely distributed. The final product is scalable, maintained, CI/CD-ready. Clickable and code prototype both sit before the MVP — they're validation tools, not the product itself. Definition: what is an MVP?
Side-by-side
| Dimension | Clickable prototype | Code prototype |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Linked screens, simulated interaction. No logic, no real data. | Working mini-application with real logic, real data, real deploy. |
| What you test | Acceptance, comprehension, flow logic. | Technical feasibility, performance, real data behaviour. |
| What you don't test | Speed, security, real-data edge cases. | Pixel polish, final microcopy, brand detail. |
| Typical tools | Figma, Sketch, Adobe XD, Penpot. | Next.js, Supabase, Vercel, Cursor, Claude Code. |
| Effort at decivo | Clickable Prototype from €3,500 · 1–2 weeks. | Code Prototype from €12,500 · a few days to 2 weeks. |
| Does it ship to production? | No — a clickable prototype is always throwaway material. | With re-implementation on a clean architecture: yes. |
Which risk do you want to validate?
The most useful question in this game comes from lean-startup tradition. Before any format decision: which assumption do I want to test? There are four classic risks — and each has a matching format.
Desirability
Do users actually want this?
A clickable prototype is enough.
If someone enthusiastically taps „Book now“ on a clickable prototype, they would do the same in the real product. Real code adds nothing to this question.
Usability
Can they figure it out without help?
A clickable prototype is enough.
Comprehension shows up in click paths, not backend latencies. A moderated user test with five participants on a clickable prototype gives you clear insights.
Feasibility
Does this work technically inside the timeline we have in mind?
Code prototype is mandatory.
Performance, API behaviour, database logic, auth complexity — none of these can be answered by a clickable prototype. You need real code that surfaces real problems.
Viability
Does this make economic sense?
Code prototype most of the time, pitch deck sometimes.
If you want to test conversion data or willingness to pay, you need code that handles real transactions. If you only need the story for an investor pitch, a strong deck with a clickable prototype can be enough.
In practice: write down the hypothesis that keeps you up at night. If it starts with „do they want this?“ or „can they figure this out?“ → clickable. If it's „is this technically possible?“ or „does this make economic sense?“ → usually code.
More on validation in practice: 6 validation methods that work.
Decision matrix: pick a format in 30 seconds
Risk and validation depth span a matrix. Depending on which quadrant you land in, the format recommendation changes — and with it the matching decivo module.
decivo format matrix
Which format fits your quadrant?
Walk through the axes: left to right is technical risk, bottom to top is desired validation depth. Per quadrant: the format that demonstrably works — plus the matching decivo module.
Low risk · Deep validation
Clickable Prototype
You're testing comprehension and acceptance — the tech concept is clear. A clickable prototype with moderated user tests gives you exactly the insights you need, no code effort.
High risk · Deep validation
Code Prototype
Technical risk is high and you need real validation data. Code pays off here, because otherwise you would run two clarification loops back to back.
Low risk · Fast alignment
Wireframes / pitch deck
You only need internal alignment or an investor pitch — no real user feedback. Skip the clickable prototype, go straight in with sketches.
High risk · Fast alignment
Code prototype (spike)
A spike implementation of the one critical part: API integration, AI integration, performance. Everything around it stays a sketch. Fast, focused, honest.
Stuck between two quadrants? Pick the higher-risk format. A clickable prototype that doesn't answer a technical question costs you a second iteration. A code prototype that's technically too powerful only costs you money.
Five anti-patterns that regularly cost money in the industry
These patterns aren't only documented in AI-coding research — they've been documented across the entire prototyping industry for years. If one of these sounds familiar, that's the clarity signal before you pick a format.
1 — Code prototype out of excitement, not risk
If the hypothesis is „do users want this?“ and you still jump into code, you're paying for an expensive answer to a cheap question. Clarify first: what exactly do you want to learn that only code can show?
2 — Clickable prototype sold as „MVP“ for too long
A clickable prototype is a discussion artefact, not a product. Showing it as „MVP“ through three investor rounds backfires the moment someone asks technical depth questions. By then you need code.
3 — Tool choice before format choice
„We use Figma because everyone does“ or „Cursor because it's hot“ are tool decisions. The format question comes first: clickable or code? Tool comes after. Reversing the order means you build the wrong thing very efficiently.
4 — Hacking real data into a clickable prototype
Linking Excel sheets or third-party plug-ins for „real“ data into a clickable prototype turns it into a messy code prototype without the architecture benefits of real code. Pick a side.
5 — Code prototype without a deploy
A code prototype nobody can reach outside your laptop validates nothing. Deploying it to a secure URL is part of the definition — otherwise it stays a demo, not a validation tool.
When does the combination of both make sense?
In roughly 1 of 10 cases we recommend both formats combined — in this order:
Step 1 — clickable prototype
You clarify acceptance, flow, and visual language. Three to five moderated user tests, one iteration round, done. Investment: from €3,500 + €1,350 per test loop.
Step 2 — code prototype on top of the insights
Once the clickable is validated, it becomes a code prototype that surfaces the technically risky part. Advantage: you save the discovery phase in code, because the concept is already locked.
This combination makes sense when your project carries both a consumer-acceptance risk and a technical risk — and you want to clarify the consumer side before you invest in code. In the other 9 of 10 cases, one of the two formats is enough.
Tooling for the technical side: MVP tools 2026 compared.
How we clarify the format decision in 4 hours
If you've looked at the matrix above and you're still not sure, that's exactly the use case for our Innovation Workshop. Half a day, on-site or remote.
In the workshop we work out the hypothesis, the risk, and the validation depth together, look at your technical reality (existing stack, data sources, auth situation), and land on the format that fits your specific question — including a mini-backlog for the next two to four weeks.
Why this works: because we build both clickable and code prototypes ourselves, we have no commercial pressure to push one variant. If a clickable is enough, we say so. If you need code, we say that too — and ship both from one team.
- Innovation Workshop (4h) — from €7,500 · clarifies format + mini-backlog · eligible for many funding programmes.
- Clickable Prototype — from €3,500 · 1–2 weeks · discovery call + wireframes + 5–8 screens + hand-off.
- Code Prototype — from €12,500 · a few days to 2 weeks · real logic + deploy + hand-off documentation.
- UX Validation Loop — from €1,350 per loop · 5 moderated user tests + analysis + recommendation.
If you want to start straight away: a 15-minute discovery call is enough for us to give an honest format recommendation — even if the answer is „you don't (yet) need either“. See all modules.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions on clickable vs. code prototype
Related articles
22 min read
Vibe Coding: From Prototype to Product 2026 — What Comes After the First Prompt
Vibe-code MVP works but the code is chaos? 4-stage maturity scale, Stack of Truth, Clarity Retrofit workflow with prompts, before/after code, and 3 paths to production-grade software.
Read article22 min read
Lovable Alternatives 2026: An Honest Comparison + What Actually Helps
Four categories of alternatives — from Bolt.new and Cursor to a Lean Software Studio. With a decision guide, real costs, and the honest question: tool problem or skill problem?
Read articleClickable, code prototype — or both? Let's clarify in 15 minutes.
Tell us briefly what you want to validate. We honestly say which format fits the question — and whether you need decivo for it or not.
We build both formats ourselves. Meaning: no sales pitch in favour of one variant.