Best Client Feedback Software for Agencies

This guide is about collecting and centralizing client feedback: comments on a website, a design or a document, plus the revision requests that follow. It is not about formal sign-off, which is a separate step.

Find My Software Stack

Why feedback needs its own place in a small agency

Client feedback rarely arrives in one format. A comment comes by email, a screenshot lands in Slack, and a request is mentioned at the end of a call. Someone on the team then has to rebuild the full picture before any revision can start.

A dedicated feedback tool puts each comment next to the thing it refers to, so the person doing the revision does not have to interpret it. Feedback is also different from approval: this page covers gathering comments, while formal sign-off is covered in client approval software. Feedback that changes the agreed work is a scope question, which is where change orders come in.

What to look for in a client feedback tool

Commenting without client accounts

Clients are more likely to leave comments when they can open a link and start. Check whether guests can comment without registering on the plan you would use.

Comments tied to the content

Pins on a page, an area on an image, or a timestamp on a video remove the need to describe where a problem is.

A path from comment to task

Feedback that stays inside the review tool still has to become work. Look for a task board or an integration with the project tool your team already uses.

Fit with your deliverable types

Some tools focus on live websites, others also handle PDFs, images and video. Match the tool to what you mostly deliver.

Software worth evaluating

The tools below cover different ways of collecting feedback. Formal approval workflows are intentionally left to the approval guide.

Markup.io

Best suited for: Pinned comments on websites, PDFs, images and video from guest reviewers

Strengths: Supports over 30 file types, unlimited collaborators, and guests who do not need to sign up, with a Chrome extension that attaches screenshots to comments.

A limitation is: Centred on review comments, so tracking the resulting work usually happens elsewhere

BugHerd

Best suited for: Website projects where each client comment should become a task

Strengths: Clients point, click and comment on the live site without an account, and every comment becomes a task on a built-in Kanban board that can also be sent to tools such as Asana, ClickUp, monday.com, Trello, Productive or Teamwork.

A limitation is: Most useful for website work; agencies delivering mainly non-web assets may want a broader tool

Pastel

Best suited for: Agencies gathering visual feedback directly on live websites

Strengths: Clients comment by opening a shared link, and comments can be turned into tasks in a connected project tool. Its examples include Webflow and Shopify sites.

A limitation is: A visual review layer only; scoping and delivery still live in your project tool

Marker.io

Best suited for: Website feedback that should arrive as issues in a tracker you already use

Strengths: Sends feedback into tools such as Jira, Trello, Asana and GitHub, and lists an agency use case for collecting website feedback from clients.

A limitation is: Relies on a connected tracker, and its QA and UAT orientation may exceed a small studio’s needs

Ruttl

Best suited for: Review comments on websites, apps, PDFs and images

Strengths: Lets clients leave feedback on live projects without signing up and connects with tools such as Trello, Asana, Jira, ClickUp and Slack.

A limitation is: Positioned for many team types, so agency-specific workflow is left to your project tool

Userback

Best suited for: Collecting feedback from users of a client’s live site or app

Strengths: Combines a feedback widget, screen annotation, video recording, surveys and session replay in one platform.

A limitation is: Built with product teams in mind, which is more than reviewing agency deliverables requires

Quick comparison

Software	Best suited for	Key capabilities	Important limitation
Markup.io	Pinned comments on websites, PDFs, images and video from guest reviewers	Pinned comments, 30+ file types, guest access	Centred on review comments, so tracking the resulting work usually happens elsewhere
BugHerd	Website projects where each client comment should become a task	Site annotations, task board, PM integrations	Most useful for website work; agencies delivering mainly non-web assets may want a broader tool
Pastel	Agencies gathering visual feedback directly on live websites	Live-site comments, shareable links, PM connection	A visual review layer only; scoping and delivery still live in your project tool
Marker.io	Website feedback that should arrive as issues in a tracker you already use	Annotated feedback, tracker integrations, QA use cases	Relies on a connected tracker, and its QA and UAT orientation may exceed a small studio’s needs
Ruttl	Review comments on websites, apps, PDFs and images	Live-site and file feedback, guest comments, integrations	Positioned for many team types, so agency-specific workflow is left to your project tool
Userback	Collecting feedback from users of a client’s live site or app	Feedback widget, annotation, video, session replay	Built with product teams in mind, which is more than reviewing agency deliverables requires

Summaries reflect each vendor’s public website as reviewed in September 2026. Plans, limits and pricing change, so confirm current details with the vendor before deciding.

How to choose

Start with what your clients actually review. If most feedback is on live websites, a site-annotation tool is a natural fit. If it is spread across PDFs, images and video, a tool that handles several file types reduces the number of places feedback lives.

Then decide where the work is tracked. If your team already uses a project tool, prioritize a feedback tool that sends comments there. The client communication guide covers the conversation around feedback, and a client portal can hold feedback alongside files and messages.

Common mistakes

Treating every comment as an approved change

A comment is a request, not an agreement. Decide how new requests are evaluated against the agreed scope before revisions start.

Leaving feedback in email and screenshots

When feedback is scattered, revisions are made from partial information and rounds multiply.

Choosing a tool clients find hard to open

If commenting requires an account and a tutorial, clients tend to fall back to email.

Not defining revision rounds

Feedback tools make comments easy to leave; they do not limit how many rounds happen. Set revision expectations in the statement of work.

Frequently asked questions

Is client feedback software the same as approval software?

No. Feedback tools collect comments and revision requests; approval tools record a formal sign-off. Some products do both, but the intent is different. See the approval guide.

Do clients need to create accounts?

It depends on the tool and plan. Markup.io, BugHerd and Ruttl each describe commenting without registration, but confirm this for the plan you would use.

Can a project management tool collect client feedback?

It can hold comments on tasks, but clients usually do not work inside the agency’s project tool. A separate review layer, or a client portal, tends to be easier for them.

Where should the resulting revisions be tracked?

In the same place as the rest of the project work, so revisions are visible next to deadlines and owners.

Conclusion

Client feedback tools are most useful when comments arrive in several formats and someone has to reconstruct them before starting a revision. Choose based on the deliverables you review and on how comments reach your task list.

See how feedback fits in your stack

Answer a few questions about your agency to see software options that fit how you work with clients.

Build My Software Stack