# BugHerd vs Marker.io

> BugHerd and Marker.io, compared honestly: who checks, where feedback goes, what clients cost, real pricing. And one third option, clearly marked.

This is the Markdown copy of https://usesuperflow.ai/comparisons/bugherd-vs-marker-io, published for AI agents and scripts. The HTML page is canonical.

## Key facts

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Page type | Third-party style comparison |
| URL | https://usesuperflow.ai/comparisons/bugherd-vs-marker-io |
| Compares | BugHerd vs Marker.io |
| Facts checked on | 2026-07-01 |
| Dateline | Facts checked July 2026, from bugherd.com and marker.io. |
| Disclosure | We make Superflow, a third option in this space. It appears once, at the end, clearly marked. Everything above it is a straight comparison. |
| Last updated | 2026-07-01 |

## Short answer

- if you want feedback pinned on the live page and managed on a built-in board, with clients commenting free.
- if the fixes live in Jira, GitHub, or Linear and your developers never want to leave, and you want console logs and session replay attached to every report.
- Both assume a person finds every mistake.
- Both collect website feedback with a pin and a screenshot. The fork: BugHerd keeps feedback on the page and manages it on its own board. Marker.io turns feedback into tickets inside the tracker your team already runs.

## Dimension by dimension

| Dimension | BugHerd | Marker.io | Verdict |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Who checks the site | A person finds every issue, then pins it. No AI. (verified July 2026) | A person finds every issue, then reports it. Its AI translates, retitles, and rewrites report text; it does not look at the site. (verified marker.io/ai, July 2026) | Even. In both tools, the checking is a person's job. That is the premise the third option removes. |
| How the client says yes | Guests comment free from a link, no account. A formal approval flow: not yet verified. (verified July 2026 except where noted) | Reporters submit free from the widget, no account. Ongoing client collaborators are paid guest seats. A formal approval flow: none found on marker.io, July 2026. | Comment collection: even, both good. A recorded client sign-off: neither, pending verification. |
| Where you review | Pins live on the site itself and stay through changes. (verified July 2026) | You annotate a captured screenshot of the page; the report carries the picture, not a persistent on-page pin. Widget on the live site, extension for members. Behind-login behavior on both: not yet verified. (verified July 2026 except where noted) | Persistent on-page review: BugHerd. Capture-and-file: Marker.io. Different philosophies more than a ranking. |
| What stays private | Private comments: not yet verified. | Internal comments on every plan. (verified July 2026) | As verified today: Marker.io. Firms up once BugHerd's dash resolves. |
| What gets captured | Browser, OS, and screen size attach to every pin. Video feedback. (verified July 2026) | Console logs, network requests, and session replay attach on the Team plan and up. Environment details on every plan. (verified July 2026) | Technical depth: Marker.io, and it is not close. If your developers debug from reports, this dimension may decide the page. |
| What it remembers | No memory concept. Each project starts blank. (checked July 2026) | No memory concept. Each project starts blank. (checked July 2026) | Even: neither. Worth knowing before you invest years of client history in either. |
| How it fits your stack | Feedback pins to the page and stays there. The kanban is built in. The tool is the workspace. Integrations: Jira, Trello, Asana, ClickUp, Slack, Teams. (verified July 2026) | Feedback becomes a ticket in your tracker. The dashboard is a waypoint; the tracker is the workspace. Thirteen-plus integrations, dev-side especially: GitHub, GitLab, Linear, Bitbucket; Jira from the Team plan; Azure DevOps on Business. (verified July 2026) | Self-contained studio: BugHerd. Tracker-centered dev shop: Marker.io. Note the plan gates: Jira costs Marker.io's Team tier. |
| What it costs | $50 / $80 / $150 per month, 5 / 10 / 25 members, +$8 per extra member. Guests free, no page-view caps advertised. (verified July 2026) | Starter $39/mo annual (3 users, 10 projects, 10 guests, 5k page views/mo). Team $149 annual (15 users, 50 projects, 50 guests, 25k page views/mo). Business: custom pricing, yearly only. No free plan; 15-day trial, no card. (verified July 2026) | Lowest entry: Marker.io, if the caps fit. Predictable at client scale: BugHerd. Agencies should price Marker.io Team against BugHerd Studio, caps included. |

## Scorecard

| Measure | BugHerd | Marker.io |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Who checks the site | a person | a person |
| How the client says yes | free guest comments; gate - | free reporters; paid guest seats; gate - |
| Where you review | on-page pins, live site | annotated screenshots into the tracker |
| What stays private | - | internal comments, all plans |
| What gets captured | browser, OS, screen size; video | console logs, network requests, session replay Team+ |
| What it remembers | no | no |
| How it fits your stack | built-in kanban; Jira, Trello, Asana, ClickUp, Slack, Teams | your tracker; 13+ incl. GitHub, GitLab, Linear; Jira Team+ |
| What it costs | from $50, guests free | from $39 annual, capped; Team $149 annual |

## Where Superflow fits

Both BugHerd and Marker.io assume a person finds every mistake. Superflow is a QA tool + a team: AI agents built from your checklist check every site change, pin what they find, your team decides, and your client approves from a link. No account, no login, no app, from their phone.

## Pricing

Both columns verified July 2026. The agency-shaped comparison: BugHerd Studio $80 (10 members, guests free, no caps advertised) against Marker.io Team $149 per month annual (15 users, 50 guests, 50 projects, 25k page views per month). Which wins depends on how many clients comment and how much traffic the reviewed sites carry.

## Sources

- https://bugherd.com
- https://bugherd.com/pricing
- https://marker.io
- https://marker.io/pricing
- https://marker.io/ai

## Questions and answers

### Which is better for a small agency?

BugHerd if feedback should live on the page with clients commenting free; Marker.io if your fixes live in a tracker and you want technical context attached.

### Do clients need accounts?

No on both. BugHerd guests comment from a link; Marker.io reporters submit without an account. Ongoing client collaborators are paid seats on Marker.io.

### Which is cheaper?

Marker.io starts lower ($39 annual); BugHerd is simpler to predict at client scale (guests free, no page-view caps advertised). Price the caps.

### Can either check the site itself?

No. Both collect what a person found. Marker.io's AI edits report text; nothing in either tool looks at the site. That's the third option above.

### Which handles developer handoff better?

Marker.io: console logs, network requests, session replay, and the dev-tracker integrations are its center of gravity.

## Related pages

Each of these also publishes a Markdown copy at its own path plus `.md`.

- [The 5 best BugHerd alternatives](https://usesuperflow.ai/alternative/bugherd-alternative)
- [Superflow vs BugHerd](https://usesuperflow.ai/comparisons/superflow-vs-bugherd)

## About Superflow

Superflow is a website and creative-asset review tool. Its agents watch every page of a site, report what changed, and route findings to the people who approve them. Teams leave contextual feedback on live sites, staging environments, PDFs, images, videos, and Lottie animations, and comments sync two-way with Asana, ClickUp, Monday, Slack, Webflow, and Google Tag Manager.

Machine-readable entry points:

- Site index: https://usesuperflow.ai/llms.txt
- Full site content in one fetch: https://usesuperflow.ai/llms-full.txt
- Free tools, with a Markdown copy of each: https://usesuperflow.ai/tools.md
- MCP server (Streamable HTTP, no account and no API key): https://usesuperflow.ai/api/mcp
- Agent card: https://usesuperflow.ai/.well-known/agent-card.json