FigJam vs. GatherContent

It is well suited when people use it to sketch the first wireframes of the UX, like the Breadboarding technique from Basecamp. I used to work like that when modifying some UX. Our designers used to sketch over our current experience wireframe, and then we could discuss it by using the comments in Figjam or the Call feature at FigJam. That made it easy to discuss it. When building up group boards to discuss ideas, I use Miro, once it has more native pre-sets that help conducts the discussion.

We create and manage content for various client's websites. The customizable workflows, assignments and user roles help us keep everyone accountable to deadlines. It is transparent, collaborative, and more efficient for all.

Incentivized

• One file, auto updated, no need to get latest
• Easy to preview
• Lack of client is benefit to some (not me)

Incentivized

• Easy to navigate interface.
• Customizable workflow.
• Set up project templates for recurring projects.

Incentivized

• Less Rigidity
• Ability to work with Different Documents
• A light version of Figma

Incentivized

• Getting emails for every single change is really annoying.
• It seems pretty easy, but I suggest you take time to train anyone who will be working on it.
• API integrations could be better as it doesn't work 100% of the time.
• Layouts created are static and you can not move the order.

Incentivized

Positive: FigJam is cheaper than Miro and allows connecting with FigJam, where we design our user interfaces. FigJam is more complete and visually appealing than draw.io, although draw.io is free. FigJam allows calls, which both competitors do not. Negative: Miro has more pre-set diagrams than FigJam and they are native and easy to use FigJam is paid, while draw.io is not.

• I believe that creating professional projects inside a web app feels amateurish.

Incentivized

• Accountability to deadlines and roles.
• Less emails and less multiple documents.
• Large scale content management for new websites.

Incentivized