Pastel Alternative: Unlimited Projects Without Canvas Anxiety

The Canvas Limit That Killed My Project Timeline

Three premium canvases. That's what Pastel's Solo plan gives you at $29/month. I discovered this limitation halfway through onboarding my fourth client of the month, staring at an upgrade prompt that wanted me to jump to $99/month for their Studio tier. The client was waiting for their feedback link, the project timeline was already tight, and I was doing mental math on whether this single project justified tripling my monthly tool cost. This is the moment when a feedback tool stops helping and starts creating problems.

Canvas-based pricing sounds reasonable until you're actually running client work. Projects don't arrive in predictable batches that respect your subscription tier. They overlap, they extend, they spawn maintenance phases that technically count as new feedback rounds. A tool that punishes you for having more work than expected has the incentives backwards, and I spent too many months working around Pastel's limits before realizing that the workaround time was costing more than any subscription savings.

Commentblocks offers unlimited projects at a flat monthly rate because feedback tools should scale with your success, not penalize it. No canvas anxiety, no upgrade math mid-project, no awkward pauses while you figure out which old project to archive so you can start a new one.

What Pastel Gets Right

Before I explain why I moved away from Pastel, I want to acknowledge what the tool does well, because understanding its strengths clarifies where the gaps actually matter.

Pastel uses proxy-based technology that lets you collect feedback on any website without installing scripts or extensions. You paste a URL, Pastel generates a shareable link, and your client can click anywhere on the rendered page to leave comments. This architecture solved a real problem when it launched: getting client feedback without the "please install this browser extension" conversation that kills participation rates. The proxy approach means clients see their actual website, click where they want changes, and type their thoughts. No accounts required for commenters, no technical barriers, no IT approval delays. For the core workflow of "client points at thing, explains what's wrong," Pastel executes cleanly.

Version history deserves credit too. Pastel tracks different states of your project over time, so you can see how feedback evolved across iterations. For projects with multiple revision rounds, being able to reference what clients said about v1 while reviewing v3 provides useful context. The interface for navigating versions is straightforward, and the visual timeline makes it easy to understand a project's feedback history at a glance.

Pastel also supports feedback on images and PDFs, not just live websites. For designers who need client input on static mockups before development begins, this flexibility means one tool covers multiple project phases. The annotation tools work consistently across formats, and the learning curve is minimal if you've used any visual feedback tool before.

Where the Model Breaks Down

Canvas limits eventually pushed me to look elsewhere. Pastel's Solo plan at $29/month includes only 3 premium canvases. A "canvas" in Pastel terms is essentially a project, so you're limited to 3 active client feedback projects at a time. For a freelancer juggling multiple small clients or an agency scaling beyond a handful of concurrent projects, this limit arrives faster than you'd expect.

Math gets uncomfortable quickly. If you're running 5 client projects simultaneously (not unusual for a growing freelancer or small team), you either need to constantly archive and rotate canvases, or jump to the $99/month Studio plan. That's a 241% price increase to go from 3 projects to 10. And if you grow beyond 10 concurrent projects, you're looking at $350/month for Enterprise. The pricing tiers assume you'll neatly fit into one bucket, but client work doesn't organize itself around subscription tiers.

Commenting windows create another friction point. On Solo, clients can only leave comments for 72 hours after you share a canvas. If your client takes a week to review (and many do, especially when multiple stakeholders need to coordinate), you're regenerating links and explaining why the old one stopped working. This limitation exists to push you toward higher tiers, but it punishes exactly the behavior you want from clients: thoughtful, coordinated feedback that takes time to gather.

Basic authentication doesn't work reliably with Pastel's proxy. If your staging site uses HTTP basic auth (username/password popup before the site loads), Pastel struggles to render it. This matters for agencies working on sites that aren't publicly accessible yet. You end up temporarily removing auth to collect feedback, which creates security considerations you shouldn't have to manage.

Integration options are limited compared to newer tools. Pastel connects to some project management tools, but the sync is typically one-way: feedback goes out, but status updates don't flow back. You end up maintaining two systems, marking items resolved in both Pastel and your PM tool, which defeats the purpose of integration.

The Breaking Point

My breaking point came during a month when project timing aligned in the worst possible way. I had three active client websites in feedback phases, which used all my Solo canvas slots. A fourth client needed a quick landing page review, nothing complex, maybe 20 minutes of feedback collection. I couldn't create a new canvas without archiving an active project, and the archived project's client was still trickling in feedback that I'd lose access to.

I spent 45 minutes trying to work around the system. Could I capture feedback via screenshots instead? Would the client accept a Loom video walkthrough? Maybe I could upgrade for just one month and downgrade later? Each workaround created more friction than the original problem, and the client was waiting while I solved a tool logistics issue instead of collecting their input.

That experience crystallized something I'd been feeling for months: the canvas limit wasn't a minor inconvenience, it was actively shaping my business decisions in ways I didn't want. I was hesitant to take on quick projects because each one consumed a canvas slot. I was rushing clients to finish feedback so I could free up canvases for other work. I was spending mental energy on tool capacity planning that should have gone toward actual project work.

A feedback tool should disappear into your workflow. When it starts influencing which projects you accept and how you schedule client interactions, the tool has become a constraint rather than a capability.

Evaluating the Options

Once I decided to move away from Pastel, I spent time evaluating alternatives with specific criteria in mind. I needed proxy-based architecture (no installation requirements), unlimited projects (no canvas anxiety), predictable pricing (no per-user scaling), and reliable core functionality (screenshots that match reality, mobile that works).

BugHerd came up frequently in recommendations, and the Kanban-style feedback management appealed to my project-oriented thinking. However, BugHerd requires either a JavaScript installation on your site or a browser extension for commenters. The extension requirement reintroduces the friction I was trying to avoid. Clients at corporate offices with restricted IT policies can't install extensions without approval workflows that take longer than the feedback itself. And the JavaScript installation means adding code to staging sites that you need to remember to remove before production. For the $129/month Premium plan that unlocks JS installation without extensions, the cost exceeded what I was trying to escape.

Marker.io has strong integration capabilities with two-way sync to project management tools. The developer-focused features like automatic JavaScript error capture seemed useful. But Marker.io requires clients to create accounts to access their guest portal. That account creation step, even though it's quick, adds friction that reduces participation. I've learned that every additional step between "client receives link" and "client leaves feedback" costs you a percentage of responses. For straightforward website feedback where clients might only leave 5-10 comments total, requiring account creation feels like overkill.

Usersnap offered enterprise-grade features with the price tag to match. Starting at $99/month with a 5-project limit on the basic plan, it didn't solve my canvas problem and introduced new constraints. The toolset complexity seemed designed for product teams collecting ongoing user feedback rather than agencies collecting discrete project feedback from clients.

Commentblocks matched what I needed: proxy-based architecture for zero-installation feedback, unlimited projects at a flat rate, no commenting windows, and pricing that doesn't scale per-user or per-project. The workflow is similar enough to Pastel that the transition didn't require relearning, but the underlying model respects how freelance and agency work actually operates.

Life Without Canvas Limits

Shifting from canvas-based to unlimited-project pricing changed my relationship with the feedback tool in ways I didn't anticipate. I stopped thinking about the tool at all, which is exactly what a utility should achieve.

When a client emails asking for quick feedback on a landing page variation, I create a project and send the link. No mental calculation about whether this "deserves" a canvas slot, no checking how many active projects I'm running, no consideration of whether I should wait until another project finishes. The tool is available when I need it, regardless of what else is happening in my workload.

Maintenance projects work differently now too. Previously, I'd archive client projects after launch to free up canvas slots, which meant losing easy access to feedback history when clients returned months later with revision requests. Now I keep historical projects accessible, so when a client says "remember that navigation feedback from the original build?", I can reference the actual comments rather than searching through old emails or screenshots.

Flat-rate pricing eliminated the scaling anxiety that came with per-canvas or per-user models. My costs don't increase when I hire a contractor to help with client load, and my costs don't spike during busy months when project volume is high. Predictable expenses make pricing my own services easier because I'm not building in buffers for variable tool costs.

Mobile feedback improved in my experience. Clients reviewing on phones get a clean interface adapted for touch interaction, and I can see exactly what device and viewport size they were using when they left each comment. This context matters for responsive design feedback, where "it looks wrong on my phone" needs specificity to be actionable.

The Technical Details That Matter

Both Pastel and Commentblocks use proxy architectures, but implementation differences affect daily workflow. When you paste a URL into either tool, the service fetches the page and re-renders it through their servers with a commenting overlay. This means no code on your site, no extensions for clients, and no authentication complexity on your end.

Proxy architecture has inherent limitations regardless of which tool you use. Highly dynamic sites with real-time updates or complex JavaScript interactions may not render identically through the proxy. Sites with aggressive caching or CDN configurations occasionally show stale content. Neither tool handles authenticated user sessions well (where the site behaves differently for logged-in vs. logged-out users). These limitations are architectural, not vendor-specific, and both tools are transparent about them.

Where Commentblocks differentiates is in handling authenticated staging environments. If your staging site requires basic auth, Commentblocks prompts for credentials and passes them through the proxy correctly. This sounds minor until you're working on a client site that requires authentication, and you have to choose between security (keeping auth enabled) and feedback collection (removing auth so the tool works).

Metadata captured with each comment includes browser, operating system, screen resolution, and the exact URL being reviewed. This information appears alongside comments automatically, so developers get context without requiring clients to manually document their setup. For responsive design issues where screen size matters, having this data attached to every comment eliminates the back-and-forth of "what device are you using?"

Honest Assessment: When Pastel Still Wins

I don't think Pastel is a bad tool. For certain workflows, it remains a reasonable choice, and switching tools always has transition costs worth considering.

Pastel makes sense if you work on only 2-3 projects at a time and the canvas limit doesn't constrain you. Some freelancers intentionally cap their concurrent projects for focus and quality reasons. If that's your operating model, the Solo plan's 3-canvas limit might never feel restrictive, and the $29/month pricing is affordable.

Pastel's version history is more developed than what many alternatives offer. If your projects involve many revision rounds where referencing previous feedback states matters, Pastel's timeline interface makes that navigation intuitive. Commentblocks tracks comment history, but the visual version comparison isn't as prominent.

Multi-format feedback (websites, images, PDFs in one tool) works well in Pastel. If you're regularly collecting feedback on design mockups before they become live websites, having one tool for both phases simplifies your stack. Commentblocks focuses specifically on website feedback and doesn't try to cover static assets.

If your clients are consistently fast reviewers who complete feedback within the 72-hour window, that limitation won't affect you. Some client relationships involve quick turnaround expectations where feedback links don't sit idle for days.

At a Glance: Pastel vs. Commentblocks

Making the Switch

If you're moving from Pastel to Commentblocks, the transition is straightforward because both tools share the same fundamental workflow: paste URL, generate link, collect comments. Your clients will find the new interface immediately familiar.

Export what you need from Pastel before switching. Download any feedback reports or comment exports for projects you want to reference later. Pastel's export formats work for archival purposes even if they don't import directly into other tools. For active projects mid-feedback, you can run both tools in parallel during the transition, sharing links from the new tool while keeping old projects accessible in Pastel.

Mental shifts matter more than technical ones. After working within canvas constraints, it takes time to internalize that you can create projects freely. I caught myself hesitating to create a new project for a small task weeks after switching, my brain still running the "is this worth a canvas?" calculation that no longer applied.

Updating your workflow documentation and client onboarding materials takes minimal effort. Replace Pastel links with Commentblocks links, update any screenshots in your process docs, and you're done. The core client experience (click link, leave comments) remains identical.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I import my Pastel feedback history into Commentblocks?

Direct import isn't available between the tools. Before canceling Pastel, export feedback from any projects you want to preserve. Pastel offers comment exports that you can keep as reference documents. For ongoing projects, you'll be starting fresh in Commentblocks, but the feedback collection workflow is similar enough that clients won't notice the change.

Does Commentblocks have version history like Pastel?

Commentblocks tracks comment history and resolution status but doesn't emphasize visual version comparison the way Pastel does. If you need to reference feedback from earlier project states, the historical comments are accessible, but you won't get Pastel's timeline-style version navigation. For most agency workflows focused on current feedback rather than historical comparison, this difference is minimal.

What about image and PDF feedback?

Commentblocks focuses specifically on website feedback and doesn't support static file annotations. If you regularly collect feedback on design mockups, PDFs, or images, you'd need a separate tool for those formats. Some teams use Commentblocks for live website feedback and Figma comments for design-phase input, keeping each tool focused on what it does best.

How does pricing work if my project volume varies?

Commentblocks charges a flat monthly rate regardless of how many projects you're running. Busy months with 10 active projects cost the same as slow months with 2. If you have extended slow periods, you can pause your subscription without losing historical data, which provides flexibility that canvas-based pricing doesn't offer.