Client Portal
A curated client view, separate from your internal workspace
SyncHQ for design studios
Design studios lose margin to revision rounds nobody counted, because feedback arrives as opinion in five different places and no one can point to what was approved.
The week this is about
The project was scoped for two rounds of revisions. You are on the fourth, and nobody can say exactly when the third became the fourth. Feedback came in a Slack thread, a marked-up PDF, two emails, and a voice note - some of it from the client contact, some of it forwarded from someone you have never met, and one piece contradicting an earlier approval that you are fairly sure happened.
The designer redoes work that was signed off three weeks ago, because there is no artefact proving it was signed off. The account lead knows the project is unprofitable but cannot make the case to the client without a timeline of who approved what and when.
This is not a creativity problem or a client problem. It is a record-keeping problem that happens to be extremely expensive, because in design the deliverable is subjective and the only defence against infinite iteration is a documented one.
What changes
01
Feedback lands in one place, attached to the thing it is about
Client comments belong to the deliverable, not to whichever channel the client happened to open. When feedback lives on the item, the conversation and the artefact stay together - so "which version were we talking about" stops being a question anyone has to answer from memory.
02
Approvals are events, not vibes
An approval that exists as "they seemed happy on the call" cannot be referenced later. An approval recorded against a specific version, with a date and a person, is what turns round five into a change order instead of an argument.
03
The client sees the current state without being in your workspace
A portal shows the client their project - current phase, what is with them for review, what is next - without exposing internal conversation. Studios sell taste and judgement; the internal debate that produces it is not something clients benefit from watching.
When this is the wrong tool
If you are a solo designer with two clients and a process you can hold in your head, this is more system than the problem requires. Come back when the third concurrent project starts colliding with the first.
Questions from design studios
Does SyncHQ replace Figma?
No, and it should not. Figma is where the design happens. SyncHQ is where the project around it happens - scope, rounds, approvals, time, and the invoice. Studios that try to run delivery inside a design tool end up with a beautifully documented file and no record of what was agreed commercially.
How does this help with revision rounds specifically?
By making them countable. Scope states the number of rounds, each round is a recorded state change against a version, and the round counter is visible to both sides. The conversation stops being "it feels like a lot of revisions" and becomes "this is round four of two".
Run one real client through it
Three projects and five people on the free plan - enough to take a live client from intake to invoice before you decide anything.
Not quite you?