Quick note from me
“Should I have case studies or not?”
I get this question every week recently. The answer depends on who you are, what role you want, and what skills that hiring manager needs to verify first.
Right now there are more portfolio formats than ever. AI made it possible to build things that don't even look like portfolios. Some are games, some are gardens, some are desktops from 1998, and some are still a clean grid with case studies.
None of them are wrong. But picking the wrong one for your profile is where most designers lose. So here are 6 formats I'm seeing in 2026, with honest pros and cons for each.
Story outline
Portfolio Format 01: The builder portfolio
Portfolio Format 02: The hybrid portfolio
Portfolio Format 03: The nostalgia portfolio
Portfolio Format 04: The engineer portfolio
Portfolio Format 05: The case study portfolio
Portfolio Format 06: The remixed classic
Watch for this: A pitfall for any format
Decision: So what’s the best format?
Portfolio Format 01
The builder portfolio
No case studies, no project stories, no fluff. The portfolio itself is the product. A garden you explore (Chloe Yan), a game you play (Wora), a full illustrative story (Mr Panda), a portfolio app store (Soon), or an immersive visual experience (Fiona Fang). When executed well, a recruiter becomes curious enough to keep exploring.
Best for:
Design engineer roles, targeting specific companies, like AI and innovative companies or teams
Pros:
Shows builder skills, craft and visual storytelling in one shot
Verifies that you can ship an end-to-end experience, not just design screens
Cons:
Shows one problem you solved: this portfolio. We don't know if you can solve problems for real users and business
Missing depth on collaboration, stakeholders, larger problem areas
Needs a strong hook and a specific target audience. Without that, a recruiter won't invest the time
Portfolio Format 02
The hybrid portfolio
Same creative energy as Format 01, but with signs of a portfolio site. A hero-to-footer layout (Jackie Zhang), menus, intro pitches (Sebastian Martinez). Still super visual and interactive, but includes some projects too, usually snapshots or short case studies. The focus stays on craft, not storytelling. These work well for multidisciplinary designers who aren't as technical as design engineers, but still want to show branding, UX, UI, web design (Wildy Riftian) or interaction design range (Bogdan Skripka).
Best for:
Craft and visual designers targeting agencies, startups or orgs where craft and visuals play a key role.
Pros:
Proves craft, visual and interaction skills through the portfolio format itself
Creates a strong first impression while still letting you show projects
Cons:
Needs to be executed well and unique. If your craft skills aren't strong, this format can expose that
Focus lands more on the portfolio than your project stories. If a hiring manager needs proof of deeper problem-solving, this won't give it explicitly, unless you include case studies
Portfolio Format 03
The nostalgia portfolio
The story is in the styling, not the case study. Think Windows 98 desktops (Dave OS, Adam Lambert, Ryo, Renee). This nostalgic trend is all over social media now. The experience is built to let you explore, not read.
Best for:
Designers who want to hook through a trendy visual style.
Pros:
Creates a surprising first impression. If done with retro sounds and desktop elements, it becomes genuinely engaging
Can still include in-depth project stories behind the home page layer
Cons:
When everyone does a 98 desktop, it stops being surprising. It becomes just a visual trend
Finding projects can get difficult with non-obvious icons and labels. And if the project story behind them is weak, you lose credibility fast
Portfolio Format 04
The engineer portfolio
Portfolios that explicitly lean into code or AI. A terminal-based site (Mori Liu), an LLM chatbot as the main interface (Zach Krall), or a portfolio that blends AI experiments with traditional case studies (Matthew Petersen, Rachel Chen). They all look different, but the explicit use of technology is what connects them.
Best for:
Design engineer roles, early tech adopters, designers with a heavy experimental mindset.
Pros:
Shows focus on emerging technologies and a willingness to build, not just design
Cons:
Can get too technical. If you rely on one solution only, like a terminal or an LLM chat, you force a recruiter to spend time, effort and motivation to learn your interface. You should be making it easy for them. A mix of solutions works better, like in Zach’s, Rachel's or Matthew's examples
Portfolio Format 05
The case study portfolio
A better version of the classic format. It used to be low craft, heavy on sticky notes, wireframes and research artefacts. Now the best ones are contextual, targeting specific organisations like B2B (Durojaiye Salaam, Dasha Karpov) or fintech, clean with high-quality visuals (Michelle Liu, Belle Duffner), and the case study focus flipped from process artefacts to the story about change. What decisions you made, why, and what results came from it.
Best for:
Typical product design roles, B2B, enterprise, in-house teams.
Pros:
Creates a comfortable, familiar review experience for a recruiter
Projects are the main actor, not the portfolio itself
Lets you communicate both breadth and depth and get verified for multiple skills at once
Cons:
If execution is poor or you overuse AI, you end up looking mediocre and generic. There are many mediocre portfolios right now, so you'll struggle to get noticed
If project selection isn't focused, it can feel like you don't know what you want
Portfolio Format 06
The remixed classic portfolio
Based on the classic format with a grid layout and case studies, but interpreted. A designer took the framework, the grid template and the recipe for case study storytelling, and built custom components, interactions and details to make it their own version. Without losing the story depth.
Best for:
Any designer who wants the reliability of a classic format but with memorable moments.
Pros:
Same comfort and depth as a classic portfolio where orojects stay the main actors
Custom built details inside, like Emmi Wu's footer, Caleb Wu's unique project thumbnails or Nitin Sangwan's content graph, prove craft beyond visual styling without losing readability and quality
Cons:
If execution is poor, those built details can feel like overkill and make you look like you're trying too hard
Watch for this
A pitfall for any format
A rendered, ideal, AI, uninterested output. Avoid it.
Show effort, creativity, human touch, craft, personality, your opinion, thoughtfulness. Some concrete ideas:
An unhappy user path
A Loom video to introduce yourself
A story about a conflict and how you navigated it
A graveyard with previous project variants
A story about a trade-off
How you orchestrated with design, AI, engineers, PMs
A hand-drawn sketch
A Figma file link
These will prove more than a basic end-to-end design process. They'll show personality, that you work with people, and that you know how to experiment.
Decision
So what’s the best format?
No single answer. But after this analysis, I think we have 2 clear learnings:
1. Focus gives you clarity
When you know if you're aiming for design engineer roles or B2B product design, you'll know what each hiring manager cares about most. For engineers, it's building. For B2B product designers, it's system thinking, problem solving, collaborating with people. That clarity tells you which format fits.
2. Go beyond what's expected
No matter your profile, questioning the status quo is what can make you stand out. It shows you're motivated to do more than just the job description. As Naval Ravikant said in one of his recent tweets, "People only want the best of anything". Try to be the best for them.
🫶 Together with Figma
The way I’d prepare a UX interview deck now
I wouldn’t open Google Slides. I would open Figma Make.
In a pool of thousands of designers applying for one role, a generic slide deck won’t help you stand out. Static visuals and repetitive case study formats make you blend in. During interviews, you don’t want to blend in. You want to be remembered.
I think about portfolios and presentations like products. When people choose between similar products, features are not enough. The difference is the experience.
That’s why I would build my UX case study presentation like a product, not a slide deck.
Why I would use Figma Make for a UX presentation:
Create smart transitions instead of linear slide flow
Add real interactions instead of static visuals
Design an immersive experience for hiring managers
Ready to build your UX case study presentation in Figma Make? Try it yourself
My Designer Toolkit 🛠️
Tools I actually use in my workflow. Some links support this newsletter.
Want help with your UX portfolio? 🎁
Build your UX Portfolio with this course
Book a portfolio strategy call with me
Questions? Reply directly.
Keep designing ✨
Aneta
