FigJam vs Miro in 2026

Introduction: FigJam vs Miro in a Nutshell

Digital whiteboarding tools have become essential infrastructure for remote teams, product squads, and cross functional teams navigating hybrid work. These platforms provide infinite canvases where multiple users can brainstorm, map user flows, plan sprints, and align on strategy—all in real time. As we move through 2026, the question of which digital whiteboard to adopt keeps surfacing in Slack channels and leadership meetings alike.

The figjam vs miro debate essentially comes down to philosophy. FigJam is the lighter, more playful option built by Figma for design teams and early-stage ideation. Miro is the more powerful, enterprise-ready visual workspace that handles everything from brainstorming sessions to complex multi-quarter roadmaps. Think of it this way: FigJam is your idea playground, while Miro is your strategy room.

Quick answer: If your team is design-first, lives in Figma, and needs fast, fun collaboration at a lower price point, FigJam is likely your match. If you’re managing complex projects across multiple departments with agile workflows and need robust integrations, Miro is probably the better fit.

This article will walk you through a detailed miro comparison covering features, user experience, pricing, integrations, security, and real-world use cases—giving you everything you need to make an informed decision.

FigJam vs Miro: Feature-by-Feature Comparison

Both figjam and miro are browser-based, cloud-native tools offering real time collaboration on an infinite canvas. You can jump into either platform without downloading software, invite teammates with a link, and start workshopping immediately. However, they’re optimized for different depths of work and different types of teams.

The shared baseline capabilities include:

• Infinite or extremely large canvases with zoom in/out
• Sticky notes, freehand drawing tools, shapes, arrows, and connectors
• Real-time multi-user collaboration with visible cursors
• Commenting, reactions, and basic markup
• Pre-built templates for brainstorming, retrospectives, and mapping
• Export options and sharing permissions

Where they diverge is focus. FigJam centers on brainstorming sessions, design sprints, and design-adjacent activities. Miro expands into roadmapping, detailed diagrams, agile ceremonies, project management, and product discovery at scale.

As of 2025-2026, both tools ship frequent updates. Miro continues leaning into complex workflows and enterprise governance, while FigJam doubles down on seamless figma integration and playful collaboration features.

Quick Comparison: FigJam vs Miro at a Glance

Miro offer great features for complex interface navigation, advanced workshop controls, and a broader feature set across use cases. FigJam wins on approachability—non-technical participants can jump in without training and start contributing immediately.

Canvas Experience and Collaboration Flow

Why does canvas UX matter? Because the experience of moving around, adding content, and collaborating shapes whether people actually use the tool or avoid it. A confusing canvas kills engagement; a delightful one makes workshops feel effortless.

FigJam’s canvas feels intentionally playful. The UI uses friendly colors, big sticky notes, stamps, emojis, and cursor chat that makes collaboration feel more like a game than work. These entertainment features lower participation barriers, especially for clients or stakeholders who aren’t “whiteboard power users.” The bottom toolbar uses skeuomorphic icons—a pen that looks like a pen, sticky notes that look like real post-its—so users understand tools instantly without explanation.

Miro’s interface is more structured. It features frames, advanced zooming, a mini-map for navigation, and support for multi-board projects. This makes it better suited for complex systems maps, long-running project boards, and detailed planning that spans weeks or months. The trade-off is a steeper learning curve for new users.

Both tools support multi-cursor presence, live typing, comments, and mentions. Miro goes further with advanced presentation modes, “follow-me” facilitation, timers, and voting—essential tools for running structured workshops with remote teams. FigJam keeps its facilitation lighter, relying on simplicity rather than control features.

Templates, Sticky Notes, and Ideation Tools

Templates dramatically speed up workshops, retros, user journey mapping, and strategic exercises. Instead of starting from a blank canvas, teams can grab a framework and customize it for their context.

Miroverse is Miro’s community template library, containing hundreds of boards for product discovery, OKRs, PI planning, strategy maps, user story mapping, mind mapping, and agile ceremonies. If you need a template for something obscure—stakeholder mapping for a government project, SAFe PI planning for 200 people—chances are someone has already built it in Miroverse.

FigJam Community offers templates focused on design sprints, user research synthesis, empathy maps, retrospectives, and early product thinking. These integrate naturally with Figma’s design system and component libraries.

For sticky note workflows specifically:

• Miro offers clustering, grouping, tags, sorting, and bulk operations—useful for synthesizing large amounts of qualitative data
• FigJam keeps things simpler with freeform post-its, fun stamps, and reactions that make ideation feel more organic

Integrations and Workflow Connectivity

Integrations reduce context-switching and smooth handoffs between tools. The fewer tabs you need open, the less friction in your workflow.

Miro integrations span product, engineering, and work management ecosystems:

• Project management: Jira, Azure DevOps, Asana, Trello
• Communication: Slack, Microsoft Teams, Zoom
• Documentation: Notion, Confluence, Google Workspace
• Development: GitHub, GitLab
• Embeds: YouTube, PDFs, iFrames

This makes Miro platform a natural hub for cross functional collaboration where boards connect to issues, tasks, and documents.

FigJam integrations are narrower but include its killer advantage—deep two-way Figma link:

• Figma (primary strength): Pull in frames, components, and prototypes; annotate designs; jump between boards and files
• Productivity: Jira, Asana, Slack, Notion
• Basic embeds

For teams whose design and product development center around Figma, this native ecosystem effect can outweigh the limited external integrations. If Figma is already your design system home, FigJam works as a natural extension rather than a separate tool.

AI Features and Automation

Both products added AI tools around 2023-2024 to speed up ideation and synthesis. The implementations reflect their broader philosophies.

Miro’s AI focuses on structured outputs and operations at scale:

• Auto-clustering sticky notes by theme
• Summarizing workshop outputs
• Generating mind maps or user stories from text
• Turning text into diagrams
• Extracting action items from discussions

These ai powered tools help large teams process lots of qualitative data and move faster from ideation to structured planning.

FigJam’s AI leans into creative exploration:

• Generating brainstorm ideas and prompts
• Turning bullet points into layouts
• Cleaning up messy boards
• Summarizing sticky-note clusters

The difference: Miro’s ai features excel at turning chaos into structure for complex workflows. FigJam’s AI helps creative teams stay in flow during early-stage thinking without jumping into heavy synthesis.

FigJam Deep Dive

FigJam launched in 2021 as Figma’s collaborative whiteboard, designed specifically for design-adjacent teamwork. It saw rapid adoption among product designers, UX researchers, and startups already using Figma for UI work.

This section focuses on what makes FigJam tick from a design-centric perspective: its interface, key features, pricing, and honest trade-offs.

User Interface and Experience in FigJam

FigJam’s simple interface is its defining characteristic. The UI is minimal, approachable, and optimized for first-time users. Tools are large and obvious. Sticky notes look like sticky notes. Cursor labels tell you exactly who’s where on the board.

Skeuomorphic touches—hand-drawn lines, doodle-style arrows, fun widgets—lower intimidation for clients and stakeholders. A workshop participant in one design agency case study noted that clients “enjoy and understand FigJam better than Miro.” The cleaner interface and playful features make sessions more engaging and less formal.

Collaboration features like emojis, stamps, live chat, and cursor chat make workshops feel lighter. These aren’t gimmicks—they create psychological safety and make participation feel less like a corporate meeting and more like creative collaboration.

Most users can be productive within a single 30-minute session without formal training. For agencies running client workshops or teams onboarding stakeholders who aren’t daily whiteboard users, this matters enormously.

Key FigJam Features and Templates

Core tools in FigJam include:

• Sticky notes with color coding
• Basic shapes and connectors
• Freehand drawing tools for sketching
• Comments and mentions
• Sections for organizing content
• Widgets like timers and voting

Templates available via Figma Community cover:

• Design sprints
• User journey maps
• Research synthesis boards
• Retrospective formats
• Brainstorming frameworks

A key advantage: you can pull Figma components and frames directly into FigJam for quick critiques and collaborative flows. This creates interactive lessons where stakeholders can comment on actual designs rather than static screenshots.

Scenario example: A UX researcher runs a synthesis session after user interviews. They import transcript highlights as sticky notes, cluster them by theme using FigJam’s simple grouping, then pull in relevant Figma wireframes to annotate problem areas—all without leaving the Figma ecosystem.

FigJam Pricing and Plans

FigJam’s free plan is notably generous:

• Unlimited view-only boards
• Limited editors
• Basic collaboration features

This makes it easy for smaller teams or freelancers to collaborate without upfront costs.

Paid plans start around $3-5 per editor/month on professional tiers when billed annually. Team and organization plan options sit above this, scaling for larger groups.

Education and non-profit programs often provide FigJam at discounted or free rates—worth exploring if you’re in a classroom or university context.

For agencies, FigJam’s “true-up” model deserves attention. Admins can approve added editors before they become billable, reducing surprise costs when working with many external clients who need temporary editing access. This alone can significantly lower total cost of ownership compared to platforms that bill automatically for every occasional editor.

Pros and Cons of FigJam

Pros:

• Intuitive UI with minimal learning curve
• Seamless integration with Figma design files
• Fun collaboration features that encourage participation
• Fast onboarding—30 minutes to productivity
• Lower price point than Miro

Cons:

• Lighter integration ecosystem versus Miro
• Fewer advanced diagramming and detailed planning tools
• Not ideal for complex program-level planning or large-scale ops boards
• Limited enterprise features compared to Miro’s governance depth

FigJam is excellent for early-stage ideation but may not serve as the best long-term “source of truth” for cross-team plans that span quarters. It’s a versatile tool for creative projects and design work, but teams needing detailed project planning should look carefully at their requirements.

Bottom line: FigJam is ideal where design is central and boards are primarily for brainstorming ideas and synthesis.

Miro Deep Dive

Miro launched as RealtimeBoard in 2011, rebranding to its current name as it grew. It’s now used by tens of millions of users and counts many Fortune 100 companies as customers. This decade-plus of evolution translates into feature depth that newer tools simply don’t match.

Miro positions itself as a general-purpose visual workspace for product, engineering, marketing, strategy, and operations teams. It’s not just a whiteboard—it’s closer to an operating system for distributed work.

User Interface and Experience in Miro

Miro’s canvas is powerful but more complex than FigJam’s. You’ll encounter frames, layers of objects, a navigation panel, and multi-board projects. This structure enables sophisticated boards but means beginners may need a short onboarding or tutorial to understand the fundamentals.

Features like presentation mode, “follow” mode, and guided tours help facilitators keep large groups aligned during workshops. For running a 50-person PI planning session, these controls are essential rather than optional.

Once learned, miro’s interface scales impressively. The same platform that runs a quick team retro can host a multi-quarter roadmap, a complex service blueprint, or a company-wide strategy visualization. That consistency across use cases is why enterprises standardize on it.

Key Miro Features and Templates

Core tools include:

• Infinite canvas with frames for organization
• Sticky notes with advanced clustering and tagging
• Shapes and advanced connectors
• Mind mapping structures
• Kanban boards and swimlane diagrams
• Detailed diagrams for user flows and system architecture

The template library through Miroverse covers:

• Product discovery frameworks
• Agile ceremonies (Scrum, PI planning, SAFe boards)
• OKR planning and strategic planning canvases
• Customer journey maps
• Various templates for retrospectives
• Stakeholder and dependency mapping

Miro supports multimedia: embedded videos, documents, iFrames, and live embeds from other services create richer boards for detailed workflows.

Miro shines in structured workflows that span many sessions—user story mapping over a quarter, tracking project progress across sprints, or maintaining a living roadmap that evolves weekly.

Miro Pricing and Plans

The free plan has constraints:

• Limited editable boards (typically 3)
• Core collaboration features suitable for testing

Paid tiers break down roughly as:

• Starter/Team: ~$8-10/user/month
• Business plan: ~$16/user/month with more advanced features
• Enterprise plan: Custom pricing with SSO, admin dashboards, and compliance features

Volume discounts exist, and specific education/non-profit offers make Miro more affordable for universities.

While Miro costs more than FigJam per seat, it provides deeper integrations and enterprise governance options that justify the premium for larger organizations needing a single visual hub for more complex projects.

Pros and Cons of Miro

Pros:

• Extremely flexible canvas for any use case
• Massive template ecosystem via Miroverse
• Strong integration catalog (100+ tools)
• Powerful facilitation tools for workshops
• Robust enterprise controls and security

Cons:

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Potential “board bloat” if not curated—complex interface can overwhelm
• Higher total cost of ownership for smaller teams
• May feel like overkill for simple brainstorming

Some teams feel overwhelmed by options and need internal best-practice guidelines to prevent chaos. This is the cost of flexibility.

Bottom line: Miro excels as a single visual hub for complex, cross-functional initiatives where essential features like advanced diagramming and enterprise admin are must-haves.

Security, Admin Controls, and Enterprise Readiness

Security and governance become critical once tools scale to hundreds or thousands of users. Both FigJam and Miro address this, but at different levels of depth.

Miro’s enterprise-grade features include:

• SSO/SAML authentication
• SCIM user provisioning
• Audit logs for compliance
• Advanced sharing controls
• Data residency options
• Granular permissions by team, project, or board

FigJam’s capabilities sit within the broader Figma ecosystem:

• SSO support for higher-tier plans
• Organization-level workspaces
• Team-based permissions
• Lighter admin depth overall

For heavily regulated industries—finance, healthcare, government—Miro’s more mature compliance story typically wins. Smaller design-centric organizations may be perfectly satisfied with FigJam’s model, especially if they’re already comfortable with Figma’s security posture.

Real-World Use Cases and Who Each Tool Fits Best

The “best” tool depends entirely on team size, workflows, and existing software stack. Neither is universally superior.

FigJam scenarios:

• Design studio running client workshops for brand identity exploration
• Product squad running weekly design crits with seamless Figma file references
• UX team synthesizing user research into themes and insights
• Small startup ideating new feature concepts before building prototypes

Miro scenarios:

• Enterprise product org running quarterly PI planning with 100+ participants
• Cross-department strategy workshop mapping company priorities
• Complex stakeholder mapping for a major initiative
• Multi-team agile ceremonies coordinated across time zones

Some teams intentionally use both figjam: FigJam for early design collaboration and creative brainstorming, Miro for program-level planning and alignment across business functions.

Team Size and Complexity

Smaller teams (under ~25 people) and agencies doing project-based design work often find FigJam’s simplicity and pricing compelling. The lower barrier to entry means everyone actually uses it.

Larger organizations with multiple departments, PMOs, and complex roadmaps benefit from Miro’s structure and admin controls. When you need to manage permissions across 500 users and maintain audit logs, Miro’s depth matters.

Hybrid path: Some organizations start on FigJam as remote teams form, then adopt Miro as operations grow more complex. This graduated approach avoids over-tooling early while leaving room to scale.

Design-First vs Cross-Functional Workflows

Design-first teams steeped in Figma gain major efficiencies from FigJam’s shared components, styles, and file navigation. When your design system lives in Figma, having a whiteboard that speaks the same language reduces friction.

Cross functional teams spanning product, engineering, marketing, and ops typically get more value from Miro’s generalized diagrams and integration coverage. When you need to link sticky notes to Jira tickets and embed Confluence pages, Miro’s ecosystem wins.

Example: A design-led discovery project in FigJam might involve mapping user flows, pulling in wireframe components, and running a design critique—all within the Figma world. A company-wide strategy offsite in Miro might involve OKR alignment, cross-department dependency mapping, and integration with the corporate Asana instance for action item tracking.

Consider where decisions actually get made today. If it’s inside Figma files and design reviews, FigJam fits naturally. If it’s across issue trackers, corporate productivity suites, and strategy documents, Miro likely integrates better.

How to Choose Between FigJam and Miro

Rather than listing generic pros and cons, this section walks through the questions your team should answer together. The goal isn’t to find the “best” tool objectively—it’s to find the best match for your specific workflow and collaboration needs.

Start by assessing:

• Your collaboration style (synchronous workshops vs. async documentation)
• Required integrations (what’s already in your stack)
• Security needs (regulated industry or not)
• Budget horizon (plan for 12-24 months of growth)

Trialing both for at least one sprint or workshop cycle gives the clearest signal. Abstract comparisons only go so far.

Is Your Team Primarily Design-Led?

If most core work already happens in Figma files, FigJam likely minimizes friction and context switching. The ability to move seamlessly between wireframes, prototypes, and workshop boards—while preserving comments and annotations—creates genuine efficiency.

For non-design-heavy orgs where Figma is unused, FigJam’s biggest advantage disappears. A marketing team that never opens Figma won’t benefit from the integration.

Before deciding, map your current “source of truth” tools: Figma, Jira, Notion, Confluence, etc. Where does critical thinking happen? That’s where your whiteboard should plug in naturally.

Do You Need Structured Workflows or Mainly Freeform Ideation?

Structured workflows—roadmapping, dependency mapping, multi-step retros, PI planning—typically favor Miro. The advanced features for detailed workflows, frames, and template ecosystem support these use cases out of the box.

Freeform ideation—brainstorms, mood boards, quick mapping—often runs faster and more enjoyably in FigJam. The lighter interface keeps focus on ideas rather than navigation.

Think about the proportion of time spent in each mode across a typical quarter. If 80% is structured planning, lean Miro. If 80% is creative exploration, lean FigJam.

A hybrid approach works too: freeform ideation in FigJam, then more formalized flows in Miro or another planning tool when outputs need structure.

What Integrations Are Mission-Critical?

List your must-have apps:

• Jira for engineering
• Asana for marketing
• Teams or Slack for communication
• Notion or Confluence for knowledge management

Miro is usually stronger when many of these tools need rich integrations and embedded updates. Cards sync bidirectionally, embeds stay live, and workflows connect across platforms.

If Figma is your primary design and documentation hub, FigJam offers uniquely tight integration that others cannot match—but the broader ecosystem is narrower.

Action item: Test specific integrations during trials. Create a Jira card from a sticky note. Embed a Notion page. See how it actually feels in practice rather than trusting marketing pages.

How Important Are Workshops and Facilitation Controls?

Large, high-stakes workshops—PI planning, offsites, big retros—benefit from miro’s advanced features: timers, voting, private mode, and advanced moderation. Facilitators can lock board sections, hide content until reveal moments, and guide attention systematically.

Smaller, informal sessions—ideation hours, quick feedback rounds—often run smoother in FigJam’s lighter environment. Less control means less overhead.

Facilitators should run the same exercise once in each tool to experience differences in pacing and control firsthand. Frequent workshop facilitators (coaches, consultants) typically favor Miro’s depth despite the learning curve.

Budget, Licensing, and Growth Plans

Think beyond per-seat prices. Consider how many stakeholders require editor access versus comment-only or view-only roles. A tool that seems cheaper per seat can become expensive if everyone needs edit permissions.

FigJam tends to be cheaper per editor seat, making it friendly to early-stage startups or smaller teams with tight budgets.

Miro’s higher cost may still be justified if it consolidates tooling and reduces the need for separate diagramming or PI-planning platforms. Paying more for one efficient collaboration tool beats paying less for three disconnected ones.

Rule of thumb: If budget is tight and Figma is central, start with FigJam. If budgets allow and complexity is high, lean towards Miro.

Are There Alternatives to FigJam and Miro?

Some teams find both tools too complex, too ecosystem-locked, or too expensive for their actual needs. It’s worth asking whether you truly need the breadth of Miro or the Figma tie-in of FigJam.

Lighter whiteboards exist—Google’s Jamboard-style tools, Lucidspark, and newer AI-driven collaboration apps focus on speed and minimalism. These might cover 80% of use cases at lower cost and complexity.

Switching costs and training time matter. If your team already uses a tool and it works reasonably well, the marginal gains of switching to FigJam or Miro may not justify the disruption. Evaluate honestly.

Conclusion: FigJam vs Miro in 2026

FigJam is the best fit for design-led, budget-conscious teams seeking fast, playful collaboration that integrates naturally with Figma workflows. Miro is the choice for complex, multi-team planning and enterprise workflows where advanced tools, broad integrations, and governance controls matter.

There is no universal winner—only a better match for each organization’s tools, culture, and maturity. The key factors come down to who uses the tool, what workflows it needs to support, and where it fits in your existing stack.

Recommended next step: Run a 2-4 week pilot with both figjam vs Miro using real projects. Gather team feedback. Make a decision based on actual usage, not feature lists.

Choose the tool that people will actually enjoy using consistently. The longest feature list means nothing if the board sits empty.

FAQ: FigJam vs Miro

Which is better for brainstorming?

For pure brainstorming sessions, FigJam’s playful UX often creates better engagement—especially with non-technical participants or clients. Miro’s structured templates and clustering tools work better when you need to quickly synthesize and organize large amounts of ideas into themes.

Can I use both FigJam and Miro in the same organization?

Yes, and some organizations intentionally do. A common pattern: use FigJam for early-stage design collaboration and creative ideation, then use Miro for program-level planning, PI planning, and cross-departmental alignment. The main cost is training and license management for two platforms.

How do their AI features compare?

Miro’s AI excels at structured outputs—auto-clustering, summarization, and generating diagrams from text. FigJam’s AI leans into creative exploration with idea prompts and layout generation. Choose based on whether you need more synthesis (Miro) or more generative inspiration (FigJam).

Which is better for education and classrooms?

Both offer education discounts. Miro’s structured templates and interactive lessons work well for formal coursework and guided activities. FigJam’s lighter, more engaging interface often works better for younger or non-technical students who might find Miro overwhelming.

Will either tool lock me into a specific ecosystem?

FigJam depends heavily on Figma—it’s the integration advantage but also a form of lock-in. If you leave Figma, FigJam loses its primary differentiator. Miro’s ecosystem is broader but deeper; heavy Jira or Notion integration creates its own dependencies. Export your work regularly regardless of which tool you choose.

Which is better for remote teams?

Both tools serve remote teams well as digital whiteboarding tools for real time collaboration. FigJam works best when remote teams are design-focused. Miro works best when remote teams span multiple functions and need a shared visual workspace for project progress and strategic planning.

What’s the biggest mistake teams make when choosing?

Over-optimizing for features they’ll rarely use. A team that needs simple brainstorming doesn’t need Miro’s full enterprise stack. A team running complex PI planning doesn’t need FigJam’s playful simplicity. Match the tool to your actual workflows, not your imagined future state.