Design and diagrams decision

Eraser

A small technical team can replicate the core AI-driven diagram generation and an editable canvas within a week of focused work and modest model costs; enterprise features and compliance are the main costly gaps to match Eraser fully.

Visit website
Subscription$20/month ✓ verified
Initial build30 hours
Monthly upkeep8 hours + $100
Evidence2/3 runs agree

Open-source builds that already do this

Every project below is open source and already does this job today. Fork one, self-host it, or take the parts you need - the build prompt further down assumes an empty file, and this is the shortcut past that. Licences differ; check the one on each card before you ship. All Eraser alternatives, with the arithmetic →

Code Eraser publishes itself

Not a way out of the subscription - these are the vendor’s own repositories. Worth a look for how they build, and for anything you would have to integrate with.

What a replacement has to do

  • Accept a text, code, or file prompt; call an LLM to produce diagram structure and layout instructions; render an editable canvas with the generated shapes and connections; persist files, versions, and export options; expose a minimal API to create diagrams programmatically.

What it still won’t have

  • SOC 2 Type II certification and associated audits
  • Built-in SAML SSO and enterprise billing/contract support
  • MCP server and agent integrations shipped by Eraser
  • Advanced team-style presets, template/branding locking, and enterprise-grade penetration testing
  • Polish and scale of a mature multi-tenant SaaS product (UX, edge-case AI prompts, scaling)

What remains hard

  • Compliance and regulationSOC 2 type 2 certified
Read the build prompt

First-year cost

Keep paying

Paying ischeaper in year one.

On cash alone, building overtakes the subscription at 6 seats.

Paid seatsseats

Money you would actually spend

Keep paying

Subscription price × seats × 12

Build it

AI build APIs + hosting

Time you would spend

What you would spend

What we assumed

The verdict above measures whether you could build it. This one is only about money.

Runnable build prompt

Not run yet
Build a minimal AI diagramming service using React for the frontend, Node.js/Express for the API, Postgres for metadata, S3-compatible object storage for exports, and OpenAI (or compatible) for LLM calls. Scope: accept text prompts and uploaded PDFs/PNG/Terraform snippets, call an LLM to produce nodes/edges + layout, render an editable SVG canvas with pan/zoom/undo, allow export to PNG/SVG/Markdown, store files and 30-day version history, and provide a /createDiagram API endpoint. Out of scope: SAML SSO, SOC2 compliance, enterprise billing, and large-scale multi-tenant isolation. Include proper error handling, retries for model/API failures, input validation, CI tests for API routes and core generation pipeline, and basic Docker-based deploy scripts.
How we checked5 sources · 2/3 runs agreed · evidence score 86

How the score was reached

  • Build verdict base78
  • An open-source build was found+5
  • 5 cited sources+3
  • Price verified on pricing page+3
  • Hard moats found in the evidence-3
  • Evidence score86

The base comes from the verdict. Everything under it is a check that either happened or did not, and each one is a fact frozen in this record rather than a judgement made at render time - so the same evidence always produces the same number.

How scoring works →

Cited sources · 5

Every page the run actually retrieved.

Integrity checks

What held up, and what did not.

✓ Price read off the page! 2 of 3 runs agreed; the verdict is the majority✓ Citations limited to fetched pages! 1 moat quoted from the page