Layerdock vs Marker.io
Marker.io if two-way Jira, Linear or Azure DevOps sync is the point and you can deploy a script tag. Layerdock if you need the console bundle without paying $149/mo, or you cannot deploy to the site you are reviewing.
Layerdock
Free to start
Free forever, no card. Pro is $19/mo per workspace, with unlimited client reviewers on every plan.
Marker.io
from $39/mo
Billed annually, 3 users. Console + network on the $149/mo Team plan
Install
Nothing
Layerdock reviews a live site from a link. No extension for reviewers, and a snippet only for private staging.
Free forever, no card. Clients just open the link, nothing to install.
How this comparison was made
Both sets of prices were read off each vendor’s own pricing page on , not from a directory or another roundup, which are routinely months stale.
Layerdock makes one of these two tools. The section naming where Marker.io is the better choice is real, not a softened weakness. If it fits your work better, buy it.
Marker.io vs Layerdock at a glance
| Marker.io | Layerdock | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Trial only | Free forever, no card |
| Entry price | $39/mo annually (3 users) | $19/mo (per workspace) |
| Console + network capture | $149/mo Team plan | $59 to $69/mo Agency plan |
| Install method | Script tag on the site | Hosted link (optional snippet) |
| Works without deploy access | No | Yes |
| Two-way tracker sync | Yes, the core feature | One-way push to 6 tools |
| Reporter portal | Yes | No |
| Reviewers | Free, unlimited | Free, unlimited |
LayerdockMarker.io is built around two-way issue-tracker sync rather than around the review surface itself. A reporter files feedback through an embedded widget, it becomes a real ticket in Jira, Linear or Azure DevOps, and the reply thread syncs back so the reporter can follow it without a tracker seat. If your team already lives in one of those tools, that is a genuinely strong reason to choose it over anything here, Layerdock included.
The constraint that decides most evaluations is the install method. Marker.io is a script tag, so it only works on sites you control and can deploy code to. That is fine for your own staging environment and awkward for a client site you have no deploy access to. Layerdock needs neither an install nor a script tag for a publicly reachable site: the review link loads the page with the pin tool added. Only staging behind a password, a VPN or a login needs its optional one-line snippet.
The second is where console data unlocks. Marker.io Starter is $39/mo billed annually for 3 users; console log recording, network capture and session replay sit on the Team plan at $149/mo annually. Layerdock puts the equivalent bundle on its Agency plan at $69/mo, or $59/mo billed yearly. If technical context is the reason you are buying a feedback tool at all, that is a $90/mo difference for the same job when both are billed annually.
Being fair about the rest: Marker.io has a separate Agency plan at $129/mo ($99 billed annually) for 15 members and 50 projects, reporters are free and unlimited, and its tracker integration is deeper than Layerdock’s one-way push to Slack, Linear, GitHub, Jira, Trello and ClickUp. If the ticket round-trip matters more to you than the diagnostics, Marker.io is the better buy.
When Layerdock is the better choice
- Console and network capture is included on the Agency plan at $69/mo, or $59/mo billed yearly. On Marker.io the equivalent sits on the Team plan at $149/mo billed annually, 3.8× its own entry price.
- Layerdock needs no install and no script tag on a public site: the review link loads the page with the pin tool added, so it works on sites you have no deploy access to. Marker.io is a script tag: no deploy, no feedback.
- Per-workspace pricing with unlimited reviewers, against Marker.io’s $39/mo for 3 users at the entry tier.
When Marker.io is the better choice
- The best issue-tracker sync in the category, and it is not close. Feedback becomes a properly-formed ticket in your tracker and the reply thread syncs back, so an external reporter can follow the issue without a seat in your Jira.
- A guest portal that lets external reporters track their own submitted issues, genuinely useful on long client engagements, and something Layerdock does not offer.
- A longer track record and a far larger body of third-party reviews, which matters when someone else has to approve the decision.
Try Layerdock alongside Marker.io
Paste your site, send one review link, and see which fits your team. The Free plan costs nothing.
Free forever, no card. Clients just open the link, nothing to install.
Everything in Layerdock, in one place
Pin it on the live page
Reviewers click any element on the real site and leave a comment. Nothing to install.
Draw and annotate
Mark up a screenshot with arrows and shapes so the change is obvious.
Record the problem
Screen recordings attach to the pin, so nobody has to explain it twice.
Console and network context
Every pin carries the errors and failed requests behind it for your developers.
Inspect the element
See the exact element, its styles and its accessibility details from the pin.
Hand it to your AI agent
Connect over MCP so your coding agent reads the feedback and fixes it.
How it works
1. Capture
Paste your site URL into a dock.
2. Share
Send the link. Clients need no account.
3. See
Every pin lands in one place, with context.
Layerdock pricing
Free
$0
Free forever, no card. Pins on the live site, unlimited client reviewers, one client share link.
Pro
$19/mo
Pro: per workspace, unlimited reviewers, 5 docks
Agency
$69/mo
Agency ($59/mo billed yearly): unlimited docks, console + network diagnostics
Console and network diagnostics are on the Agency plan, not the entry plan. Compare that tier, not the headline price, if diagnostics are what you are buying. See full pricing.
Not just us: the whole shortlist
This page argues one tool against another. If you have decided to leave Marker.io but not what to move to, Marker.io alternatives ranks the realistic options by verified entry price, including the ones cheaper than us.
Common questions
Why is Marker.io’s console capture so much more expensive?
It is bundled with session replay on the Team plan at $149/mo annually rather than sold as part of the core product. Layerdock includes console errors and network requests on its Agency plan ($69/mo, or $59/mo billed yearly). Cheaper tools elsewhere in the category include the equivalent by default, so this is a packaging choice rather than a technical limit.
Can Marker.io review a site I cannot deploy to?
No. Marker.io installs as a script tag on the page, so you need deploy access to the site being reviewed. BugHerd’s browser extension and Layerdock’s no-install review link are the usual answers when you are reviewing a client’s site or a third-party environment.
Does Layerdock sync issues back from Jira?
Layerdock pushes feedback out to Slack, Linear, GitHub, Jira, Trello and ClickUp, and honours inbound status changes from those tools. It does not offer the reporter-facing portal Marker.io does, where an external submitter tracks their own issue. If that round-trip is the requirement, Marker.io does it better.
Review the live site, with nothing to install
Paste a URL, share the link, and your client pins comments on the real page. Plans start free.
Other comparisons
Layerdock vs BugHerd
BugHerd from $50/mo
Layerdock vs MarkUp.io
MarkUp.io from $79/mo
Layerdock vs Userback
Userback from $39/mo
Layerdock vs Huddlekit
Huddlekit from $16/mo
Layerdock vs Ybug
Ybug from €13/mo
Layerdock vs Jam.dev
Jam.dev from $14/creator/mo
Layerdock vs Ruttl
Ruttl from $18/user/mo
Layerdock vs SureFeedback
SureFeedback from $25/mo
Layerdock vs Pastel
Pastel from $35/mo
Layerdock vs PageProofer
PageProofer from $39/mo
Layerdock vs Feedbucket
Feedbucket from $49/mo
Layerdock vs Bird Eats Bug
Bird Eats Bug from $50/mo
Layerdock vs Atarim
Atarim from $67/mo
Layerdock vs zipBoard
zipBoard from $99/mo
Layerdock vs Usersnap
Usersnap from Not published
Want the whole category rather than one head-to-head? Compare 17 website feedback tools, read what a dock is, or go straight to pricing.