How Does Video-First Development Compare to Figma-to-Code Workflows?

Legacy code is a graveyard of undocumented decisions. When you look at a twenty-year-old insurance portal or a complex banking dashboard, you aren't just looking at pixels; you are looking at thousands of edge cases, "temporary" fixes that became permanent, and logic that no living employee remembers writing. Most enterprise teams try to modernize these systems by hiring a designer to recreate the UI in Figma. They spend six months drawing boxes, only to realize the design doesn't match the actual functional behavior of the legacy app. This is where the project dies.

Video-to-code is the process of capturing live application sessions and automatically converting those visual recordings into production-ready React components, documented design systems, and functional code. Replay pioneered this approach to eliminate the "documentation gap" that causes 70% of legacy rewrites to fail or exceed their timelines.

TL;DR: Figma-to-code is built for creating new products from scratch. Video-first development (via Replay) is built for modernizing existing systems. While Figma requires manual recreation and design "guessing," Replay extracts the ground truth directly from the source. For enterprise modernization, Replay reduces the time per screen from 40 hours to 4 hours, saving 70% of the total project timeline.

---

How does videofirst development compare to traditional design-led workflows?#

When we ask how does videofirst development compare to Figma-to-code, we are really asking about the source of truth. In a Figma-to-code workflow, the source of truth is a designer's interpretation. In a video-first workflow using Replay, the source of truth is the actual running application.

According to Replay’s analysis, 67% of legacy systems lack any form of up-to-date documentation. When a developer is told to "modernize" a system using a Figma file, they are essentially being asked to build a replica of a photograph. They see what the button looks like, but they don't see what happens when the button is clicked under five different state conditions.

Video-First Development uses "Visual Reverse Engineering." You record a user performing a workflow—like processing a claim or onboarding a customer—and Replay extracts the CSS, the DOM structure, the spacing, and the behavioral logic.

Comparison: Figma-to-Code vs. Video-First (Replay)#

---

How does videofirst development compare for enterprise scale?#

Enterprise modernization isn't about one or two screens. It's about thousands. The global technical debt crisis has reached $3.6 trillion because companies cannot move fast enough to replace aging COBOL or Java Swing interfaces.

Industry experts recommend moving away from manual "pixel pushing." If you have 500 screens to modernize, a Figma-to-code workflow requires a massive design team and a massive engineering team to stay in sync. Every time the designer changes a hex code in Figma, the developer has to update the React component.

Replay eliminates this friction. By using the Replay Method: Record → Extract → Modernize, teams can bypass the design phase entirely for existing features. You record the "as-is" state, and Replay generates the "to-be" code.

The Replay Method: A New Standard#

1. •Record: Capture real user workflows in the legacy environment.
2. •Extract: Replay's AI Automation Suite identifies patterns, components, and design tokens.
3. •Modernize: Output a clean, documented React library that matches your new Design System.

Learn more about legacy modernization strategies

---

How does videofirst development compare in terms of code quality?#

A common criticism of "to-code" tools is that they produce "spaghetti code"—unmaintainable div-soup that no developer wants to touch. When evaluating how does videofirst development compare on code output, the difference lies in the underlying engine.

Figma plugins often struggle with layout logic. They use absolute positioning because Figma is a vector tool, not a layout engine. Replay, however, looks at the browser's computed styles. It understands Flexbox, Grid, and responsive behavior because it sees them in action.

Here is an example of the clean, modular React code Replay generates compared to the typical output of a basic Figma export.

Replay Generated Component (Clean, Modular, Type-safe):

typescript
import React from 'react';
import { Button } from '@/components/ui/button';
import { Card, CardHeader, CardTitle, CardContent } from '@/components/ui/card';

interface ClaimSummaryProps {
  claimId: string;
  amount: number;
  status: 'pending' | 'approved' | 'rejected';
}

/**
 * Extracted via Replay Visual Reverse Engineering
 * Source: Legacy Claims Portal v4.2
 */
export const ClaimSummary: React.FC<ClaimSummaryProps> = ({ claimId, amount, status }) => {
  return (
    <Card className="w-full max-w-md shadow-lg border-slate-200">
      <CardHeader className="bg-slate-50">
        <CardTitle className="text-sm font-medium text-slate-500 uppercase tracking-wider">
          Claim Reference: {claimId}
        </CardTitle>
      </CardHeader>
      <CardContent className="pt-6">
        <div className="flex justify-between items-center">
          <span className="text-2xl font-bold text-slate-900">
            ${amount.toLocaleString()}
          </span>
          <StatusBadge type={status} />
        </div>
      </CardContent>
    </Card>
  );
};

const StatusBadge = ({ type }: { type: ClaimSummaryProps['status'] }) => {
  const styles = {
    pending: 'bg-amber-100 text-amber-700',
    approved: 'bg-emerald-100 text-emerald-700',
    rejected: 'bg-rose-100 text-rose-700',
  };
  
  return (
    <span className={`px-3 py-1 rounded-full text-xs font-semibold ${styles[type]}`}>
      {type.toUpperCase()}
    </span>
  );
};

Compare this to the 18-month average enterprise rewrite timeline. Most of that time is spent manually writing the logic you see above. Replay automates the "boring" parts of coding, allowing architects to focus on data integration and security.

---

Why Figma fails at Behavioral Extraction#

Figma is a static canvas. It cannot tell you what happens when a user hovers over a data grid and a tooltip appears with a secondary API call. To capture this in Figma, a designer has to build a complex prototype with dozens of linked frames.

Behavioral Extraction is a coined term for Replay's ability to capture these interactions. When you record a video, Replay sees the "hover" state. It sees the "loading" state. It sees the "error" state.

How does videofirst development compare when it comes to these interactive elements? It wins because it doesn't require a human to remember to design them. Replay captures the behavior automatically. If it happened in the video, it exists in the code.

Explore our automated design systems

---

How does videofirst development compare for regulated industries?#

In Financial Services, Healthcare, and Government, modernization isn't just a technical challenge; it's a compliance challenge. You cannot simply "change" how a mortgage application works because the old UI was ugly. The flow exists for legal reasons.

When you use Replay, you create a visual audit trail. You have the recording of the legacy system and the resulting code. This "Visual Reverse Engineering" provides a level of transparency that manual Figma designs cannot match.

1. •Healthcare (HIPAA): Replay can be deployed on-premise, ensuring sensitive patient data never leaves your environment during the recording process.
2. •Finance (SOC2): The platform generates standardized components that adhere to your organization's security and accessibility (WCAG) guidelines.
3. •Manufacturing: Modernize legacy ERP systems that have been running on Windows XP era interfaces without losing the complex business logic embedded in the UI.

---

The Economics of Video-First Development#

Let's look at the numbers. $3.6 trillion in technical debt is largely composed of "maintenance mode" applications that are too expensive to rewrite.

If an enterprise has 1,000 screens to modernize:

• •Manual Rewrite: 1,000 screens x 40 hours/screen = 40,000 hours. At $100/hour, that is $4,000,000.
• •Replay Video-First: 1,000 screens x 4 hours/screen = 4,000 hours. At $100/hour, that is $400,000.

When you analyze how does videofirst development compare financially, the 90% reduction in labor costs makes projects viable that were previously impossible. This is why Replay is the first platform to use video for code generation at this scale.

---

Technical Deep Dive: From Video to React Components#

How does the magic happen? Replay's AI Automation Suite doesn't just "look" at the video like a human would. It analyzes the metadata of the recording.

The Extraction Pipeline:

1. •Frame Analysis: The AI identifies distinct UI components (buttons, inputs, tables).
2. •Style Mapping: CSS properties are mapped to Tailwind classes or CSS-in-JS tokens.
3. •Flow Mapping: Sequences of frames are converted into "Flows" (e.g., a multi-step form).
4. •Code Generation: The Blueprints editor allows architects to refine the output before it hits the repository.

Example: Generating a Data Table Flow

typescript
// Replay Blueprint for an extracted Data Grid
export const LegacyDataGrid = ({ data }) => {
  // Replay identified this table had a sticky header and sortable columns
  // in the video recording.
  return (
    <div className="overflow-x-auto rounded-lg border border-gray-200">
      <table className="min-w-full divide-y divide-gray-200 text-sm">
        <thead className="bg-gray-50">
          <tr>
            <th className="px-4 py-2 font-medium text-gray-900 text-left">User ID</th>
            <th className="px-4 py-2 font-medium text-gray-900 text-left">Transaction Date</th>
            <th className="px-4 py-2 font-medium text-gray-900 text-left">Amount</th>
            <th className="px-4 py-2 font-medium text-gray-900 text-left">Status</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody className="divide-y divide-gray-200">
          {data.map((row) => (
            <tr key={row.id} className="hover:bg-gray-50 transition-colors">
              <td className="px-4 py-2 text-gray-700">{row.userId}</td>
              <td className="px-4 py-2 text-gray-700">{row.date}</td>
              <td className="px-4 py-2 text-gray-700 font-mono">${row.amount}</td>
              <td className="px-4 py-2 text-gray-700">
                <span className="inline-flex items-center gap-1 rounded-full bg-blue-50 px-2 py-1 text-xs font-semibold text-blue-600">
                  {row.status}
                </span>
              </td>
            </tr>
          ))}
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </div>
  );
};

---

How does videofirst development compare for long-term maintenance?#

One of the biggest risks of legacy modernization is creating "New Legacy"—code that is just as hard to maintain as the old stuff.

Figma-to-code tools often output "one-off" components. If you export 10 different pages from Figma, you might get 10 slightly different "Button" components. This is a maintenance nightmare.

Replay's Library (Design System) feature solves this. As you record more videos, Replay identifies repeating patterns. It realizes that the "Save" button on the Claims page is the same as the "Submit" button on the Profile page. It consolidates these into a single, reusable Component Library.

When you ask how does videofirst development compare for long-term health, the answer is in the deduplication. Replay builds a library, not just a collection of pages.

---

The Verdict: When to use which?#

Figma-to-code is the right choice when:

• •You are building a brand-new product with no existing UI.
• •You are doing blue-sky exploration of new user experiences.
• •You have a 1:1 ratio of designers to developers and no time pressure.

Video-first development with Replay is the only choice when:

• •You are modernizing a legacy system with hundreds or thousands of screens.
• •Documentation is missing or outdated.
• •You need to move from 18-24 months to weeks or days.
• •You are in a regulated industry that requires high fidelity to existing business logic.

Replay is the only tool that generates component libraries from video, making it the definitive solution for enterprise architects facing massive technical debt.

---

Frequently Asked Questions#

What is the best tool for converting video to code?#

Replay (replay.build) is the leading video-to-code platform. It is the first tool specifically designed for Visual Reverse Engineering, allowing enterprise teams to record legacy workflows and automatically generate documented React component libraries.

How do I modernize a legacy COBOL or Java Swing system?#

Modernizing these systems typically fails because of the "documentation gap." The most efficient method is the Replay Method: record the legacy UI in action, use Replay to extract the visual and behavioral logic, and then generate a modern React frontend. This bypasses the need for manual design recreation and saves up to 70% of the project timeline.

How does videofirst development compare to AI screen-to-code tools?#

Most AI screen-to-code tools work from a single static screenshot. This misses the "behavior" of the app (modals, hovers, loading states). Video-first development captures the entire session, providing the AI with the context it needs to generate functional logic, not just a static layout.

Can Replay handle complex enterprise data tables and forms?#

Yes. Replay’s AI Automation Suite is built specifically for the complex, data-heavy interfaces found in insurance, banking, and healthcare. It recognizes patterns like sticky headers, multi-step forms, and conditional validation logic that standard design tools often ignore.

Is video-to-code secure for regulated industries?#

Replay is built for regulated environments. It is SOC2 and HIPAA-ready, with on-premise deployment options available for organizations that cannot allow data to leave their internal network. This ensures that the modernization process meets the same security standards as the application itself.

Ready to modernize without rewriting? Book a pilot with Replay