Since I could remember, GIMP has always been recommended as the free and open-source Photoshop alternative, and for good reason. I’m not here to downplay its abilities, it’s clearly a super capable editor that holds its own against paid software. While its functionality isn’t perfect on all fronts, my problem was never really with what it was capable of doing - it’s the experience of actually doing it.

Although GIMP 3.0 and 3.2 did bring us some long-awaited UI upgrades, it still lags behind other editors, and I’m not the only user who holds this opinion. I still have GIMP installed and open it from time to time, but I’ve long stopped trying to make it my go-to editor because I just end up fighting with the interface and user flow more than actually editing. Luckily, there are hoards of GIMP alternatives that will give you the same functionality, if not better. But if I had to pick one, it would be Photopea…

Photopea is not open-source, but that’s not the whole story

Why it’s still a worthy GIMP alternative

I know one of the biggest reasons people make the switch to GIMP is specifically because it’s open-source. So why would I recommend a closed-source alternative? Well, Photopea actually holds similar principles as GIMP. The whole thing was built by one developer, Ivan Kutskir, a Ukrainian programmer based in Prague, who started it as a hobby project back in 2012 and has been the main force behind it ever since. There’s no VC money, corporate owner waiting to pull the plug, or backend server handling your files.

Everything runs entirely in your browser, which means your designs and images never leave your machine. The business model is straightforward too: ads on the free tier and a premium subscription if you want to remove them. The code is proprietary mostly out of necessity - the developer has been open about the fact that keeping it closed is what stops larger campaigns from just copying the codebase and competing directly with it. For a one-person project going up against the likes of Adobe, that’s a pretty reasonable call.

It’s also worth noting that Photopea was designed from the ground up to feel like Photoshop, not GIMP or something in between. So if you’re making the switch from an Adobe product, the layout and logic will feel familiar. This intentional design philosophy is a big part of why I think it works as a daily driver in a way that GIMP doesn’t.

It does what GIMP does

Without the learning curve

The overlap between Photopea and GIMP is honestly more extensive than people realize. The obvious stuff is all there - layers, masks, blending modes, curves, levels, hue/saturation controls, and so on. GIMP’s layer system (including layer groups, blend modes, and layer masks) maps almost one-to-one onto Photopea’s. GIMP’s Colors menu adjustments (curves, levels, hue/saturation, color balance) are all available in Photopea too, either destructively through the Image menu, or as proper adjustment layers if you want to keep things non-destructive.

The retouching tools carry over just as cleanly. GIMP’s Clone tool is Photopea’s Clone Stamp, and GIMP’s Heal tool is Photopea’s Healing Brush - same function and use cases. The Script-Fu console and batch processing, or the BIMP plugin if you used that, is replaced by Photopea’s Actions panel, which records and replays steps across multiple files the same way.

The unexpected one is GIMP’s Channels dialog, which hardcore users rely on for complex selections, color separation, and alpha work. And it exists in Photopea as a full Channels panel with the same RGB and alpha channel editing you’d expect. It’s the kind of feature that tends to be missing in lighter editors.

GIMP’s export options are actually one of its strengths that people don't talk about enough, and they carry over in Photopea too. WebP, TIFF, PDF, SVG, and most formats you’d open GIMP for are all available. Photopea also opens XCF files, which is GIMP’s native format, so existing project files aren’t stuck behind. Lastly, both GIMP and Photopea open and handle PSD files with ease (most of the time).

Where Photopea actually pulls ahead

The gaps GIMP still hasn’t closed

By far the biggest reason Photopea works better for me isn’t any specific feature - it’s just easier to use. Everything lives in one window, the toolbar is where you’d expect, and the menu structure follows logic most people already have some familiarity with. GIMP’s tools still feel loosely scattered rather than part of a cohesive layout, and some essential actions are buried deep enough that you never really build muscle memory. The newly released GIMP 3.2 did give us some visual cleanup and the team is clearly putting in the work, but years of accumulated interface quirks aren’t something a single release can undo.

Then there’s non-destructive editing. GIMP 3.0 gave us some non-destructive abilities, and 3.2 added non-destructive layer types that start to approximate smart objects. So credit where it’s due. But Photopea still has more comprehensive non-destructive editing, plus it has actual smart objects. Another one is adjustment layers. Again, 3.2 gave us some enhancements by allowing non-destructive filters to be applied to layer groups that are set to Pass Through mode. But Photopea handles curves, levels, and other adjustments as proper, stackable, non-destructive adjustment layers, the same way Photoshop does.

Should you make the switch?

It honestly depends on the type of workflow you’re comfortable with. I don’t think GIMP’s a bad editor, but its cons just outweigh the cons of some other editors. And I tried to make GIMP work for me, but turns out I prefer a more standardized user flow. If you’re in the same boat, I recommend checking out Photopea. Although Photopea has a vastly different architecture with being closed, browser-based, and practically a Photoshop clone, it does share GIMP’s ethos of accessible design, and it can cover pretty much all of the same design tasks.