Your client pins comments on the live site and signs off the version they saw. No script on the site, no extension, no client login. Works on staging, on production, or on a site you do not control yet.
Aligno is built for studios that keep client sites running: care plans, retainers, the monthly batch of landing pages, and the Webflow, WordPress, or Shopify builds that never quite stop changing. One link per site, comments in context, and a sign-off record you can point to when the scope question comes up later.
Free plan covers one live website, unlimited pages and reviewers.
The discussion about a page and the decision about that page sit together. You skip the gap where feedback lives in one inbox and the “looks good, go live” lives in another.
Reviewers point at the exact section, at the width they were looking at, so a designer and a developer read the same request the same way. That matters most on responsive layouts, where “the header is broken” means three different things.
Status is visible per site: waiting on the client, changes requested, or approved. An account lead can see which retainer sites are blocked without opening a single thread.
The sequence below is what an agency does for a care-plan client every month. It keeps momentum without losing the record.
Production, a public staging URL, or a site your agency does not manage yet. Aligno loads the page through its own review proxy, so nothing is installed on the site and the platform behind it does not matter. A WordPress care-plan site, a Webflow build, and a Shopify store all open the same way.
The client opens it in any browser. No account, no password, no extension to install. They see the real page at desktop, tablet, or phone width and can browse to other pages of the site inside the review.
Reviewers drop a pin or draw a box, an arrow, or a freehand mark exactly where the change belongs. They can attach a reference screenshot or the corrected copy as a PDF. Every comment carries the page, the viewport, and the version it was made on, so nobody has to ask which page they meant.
When the round is done, the client clicks Approve or Request Changes. The decision is recorded against the exact version they reviewed, with a timestamp. Set a review due date and Aligno reminds them before the deadline and again if it slips.
A live site changes. When you publish a new version, earlier versions keep a snapshot of the page as it was, so last month's comments still point at last month's page. On Pro and Studio you can export the comments and the sign-off history as a CSV or a client-ready PDF.
Care-plan clients send changes every month. Keep the site as one asset in the client's project, publish a new version when the page changes, and send the same link again. The history stays in one place across the whole retainer.
People search for a website review tool and a website feedback tool interchangeably, and for client work they mean the same thing: a way for a client to look at a live page, say in context what to change, and sign off when it is right. “Review” leans toward the evaluation pass. “Feedback” leans toward the comments themselves. Aligno covers the whole arc, from the first pin to the recorded approval.
What you want to avoid is a tool that only does one half. A pure commenting widget collects reactions but never closes the loop with a decision, so “looks good” in a thread becomes the only record. A bug tracker captures issues but is built for engineers, not for the client who has to say yes. A website review tool aimed at sign-off keeps the reviewer on a clean, no-login page and ends every cycle with a documented decision.
Yes. The Aligno free plan needs no credit card and is not a time-limited trial. It covers one live website with unlimited pages, unlimited comments, and unlimited reviewers. Paste a URL, send one share link, and collect pinned comments from a client who never creates an account. Run one real review on it and upgrade when the second client site comes in.
Client access stays free on every plan. Aligno is priced per agency, not per reviewer, so a site with two stakeholders and a site with twenty cost you the same. For an agency with a book of retainer clients, that is usually the deciding difference against per-seat website feedback tools.
Paid plans include your own team too. Pro seats up to 3 people and Studio up to 10, so an account lead and a designer can work the same reviews without sharing a login. Only your team occupies seats. Clients keep reviewing for free.
The client sends this month's changes as pins on the live site instead of a Loom and three screenshots. You publish, they approve, the record stays with the site.
Share the staging URL, run the last round at desktop and phone width, and get an explicit Approve before you point the domain. Export the PDF for the project file.
Nothing is installed, so you can open a prospect's current site and pin your observations on it. Send them the link before the first call.
Agencies see the biggest gains when the same client sites come back month after month, with a mix of visual and content changes and more than one stakeholder on the client side.
Use a simple scorecard for your first month. Track how long a review round takes and how many clarification messages each round needs. Then track the time from the final change to the recorded approval.
If those numbers improve, the process is getting healthier. If not, adjust the instructions you give reviewers and the review cadence before adding more tooling.
Most agencies do not need a governance program to improve website review. They need a few consistent standards. The first is one source of truth per site: one review link, one place for comments, and one explicit decision state per version. When that is missing, projects drift because stakeholders compare different versions and discuss issues without shared context. A website feedback tool earns its place when it enforces that discipline without adding friction for the person on the client side.
The second standard is precision. Feedback should be anchored to an exact spot and described in terms you can implement. “Make this cleaner” is hard to action. A pin on the section, a line about what feels wrong, and a line about what should happen instead can be resolved in one pass. A short rubric for reviewers goes a long way here.
The third standard is cadence. Website projects stall when comments arrive continuously without decision points. A defined review window with a due date keeps momentum predictable. Designers batch updates, account leads line up stakeholders, and clients know when the approval moment is. In Aligno the due date does the chasing: reviewers get a reminder before the deadline and a follow-up if it slips.
The fourth standard is approval integrity. An approval belongs to a specific version after the key feedback is resolved. If new requests appear later, you can tell a refinement from net-new scope, because the earlier version keeps its snapshot and its decision. That distinction protects the timeline and the margin on retainer and fixed-fee work alike.
The last standard is measurement. Track the cycle time per round and the number of clarification messages, and track the time from final change to approval. If those move in the right direction, the workflow is working. If they do not, adjust reviewer guidance and cadence before introducing another tool. A website feedback tool works best alongside light process discipline, not heavy overhead.
Most website feedback tools either put a script on the site, focus on bug tracking, or charge per seat. Here is how Aligno lines up against three popular options on the dimensions that matter for client-facing web review.
| Capability | Aligno | Marker.io | BugHerd | Pastel |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No client login required | Yes | Guest mode | Guest mode | Yes |
| Reviews live webpages | Yes, no install | Yes (via widget) | Yes (via extension) | Yes, no install |
| Earlier versions keep a page snapshot | Yes | Ticket per issue | Ticket per issue | Versions, page stays live |
| Also covers images, PDFs, video | Yes, same workspace | Limited | Bug tracking focus | Yes |
| Explicit one-click approval | Yes, with PDF export | Issue states only | Task statuses | Yes |
| Free plan | Yes, no card required | Trial only | Trial only | Yes, limited |
| Pricing model | Flat per agency, clients free | Per seat | Per seat | Seat-based plans |
Capability summary based on each vendor's public pricing and feature pages as of September 2026. For deeper comparisons see the Marker.io alternative, BugHerd alternative, and Pastel alternative pages.
Yes. The client opens the share link in any browser, pins a comment on the page, and clicks Approve when the round is done. There is no account to create and nothing to log in to, on every plan including the free one.
No. Nothing is installed on the client's site and nothing is installed in the client's browser. Aligno loads the page through its own review proxy, which is also why it works on sites your agency does not control.
Aligno is one. Reviewers get a share link, comment directly on the live page, and approve without signing up. Most other website feedback tools either put a script on the site, ask the reviewer for a browser extension, or hand them a guest account to set up first.
Yes. Aligno reviews the rendered page rather than a plugin inside the platform, so the platform does not matter. Paste the URL of the WordPress site, the Webflow project, or the Shopify store and share the link. A small number of heavily scripted pages render better through the free Chrome extension fallback, which is documented on the limitations page.
Both, as long as the URL is reachable from the internet. Agencies use it on the staging URL before launch, on the production site during a care plan, and on a prospect's current site to pin redesign notes before the pitch.
Publish a new version in Aligno and the earlier version keeps a snapshot of the page as it was reviewed. Comments and the sign-off stay attached to that snapshot instead of drifting on the live page. The current version keeps the live page.
Bug trackers are built for engineering workflows: a script on the site, a ticket per comment, a board to work through. A website feedback tool for client work is built for the sign-off. The client gets one link and one decision, and you keep a record you can export. Confirmed issues can still go to your engineering tools from there.
Yes. The Aligno free plan covers one live website with unlimited pages, unlimited comments, and unlimited reviewers, with no credit card. Run one real client review on it and upgrade when the second client site comes in.
Yes. A comment can carry up to 5 attachments of 10 MB each, images or PDFs. That covers the usual cases: a reference screenshot from another site, the corrected copy as a document, or the brand asset the change should use.
Yes. Give the review a due date when you share the site. Reviewers get an email reminder before the deadline and a follow-up if the review goes overdue, and you get a digest of sites still waiting on a decision.
Yes. Connect a Slack channel and new comments and decisions post there as they happen, with replies threaded under the original comment. Your team sees feedback arrive without refreshing a dashboard.
Yes. Aligno also reviews images, PDFs, and video in the same project as the live site. Many agencies review the mockup as an image first, then move to the live URL once the page is built, and keep both in the client's project.
Wondering about a page that will not load in the review? Read the limitations page.
Nearby intents that often map to the same evaluation.
Paste the URL, send one link, and see whether the round closes with fewer messages and a decision you can point to. If it does, keep going with the next site.
Start Free