Figma, headquartered in San Francisco, offers their collaborative design and prototyping application to support digital product and UI development.
$15
per month per editor
Miro
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
Miro provides a visual workspace for innovation, where distributed teams can build the future together. Miro counts more than 90 million users, who improve product development, speed up time to market, and ensure that new products deliver on customer needs.
$10
per month per user
Pricing
Figma
Miro
Editions & Modules
Professional
$144
per year
Organization
$540
per year
Starter
Free
1. Free - To discover what Miro can do. Always free
$0
2. Starter - Unlimited and private boards with essential features
$8
per month (billed annually) per user
3. Business - Scales collaboration with advanced features and security
$16
per month (billed annually) per user
4. Enterprise - For work across the entire organization, with support, security and control, to scale
contact sales
annual billing per user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Figma
Miro
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
—
Monthly billing also available at $10 per month for the Starter plan, or $20 for the Business plan.
Figma stands out against Adobe XD in that it is better in every way, easier to use and with more advanced tools that allow for greater customization of components and efficiency when designing. While Figma is not a 1:1 of Miro, the white boarding tool, it does have some overlap …
I think they serve different purposes. For Miro, we usually use that for workshops and brainstormings. There are some templates we can make use of. For Jamboard, it is quite lightweighted so we use that for quick brainstorming or retro. Figma is the only option for talking about …
I believe when it comes to prototyping and visualisation I would say Figma is way better than above mentioned tools. However, when it comes to workshops, brainstroming exercises and running sessions, I feel Miro might be better as compared to figjam and Mural. Figma is quite …
I think Figma is better because it's easier to create more visually appealing work. I would say that Figma is better for people who are used to using this sort of visual design software/platform. Whereas I think Miro is better for first time users, it doesn't offer as many …
Miro is more user-friendly than Figma, but is less robust in terms of web prototyping and graphic design. While Figma isn't made to be used as a design tool, our team has taken to using it as such because it's richer in functions and personalizations compared to Miro and Figma.
Adobe XD is an absurd copycat that never got to have even 10% of Figma's features. It's hyper fast because it's native, but that's the only good thing it has.
Axure RP is an excellent prototyping software, with Local Variables and complex interactions. But it's also extremely …
Compared to Adobe XD, the Figma tool is much easier to use, offers more features, and has a much lower cost. Its features are less complex, making it very easy to teach beginners how to use it. The navigable prototype is also easier and more efficient to share in Figma compared …
Figma easily wins against Adobe XD. Asset sharing on XD was a pain. Figma makes it really easy by allowing you to export any layer as an asset. XD had no comments making it incredibly hard to communicate with the designer in remote settings. XD's prototyping system was not good …
I prefer to use it comparing to Adobe XD. It surely is more intuitive and still develops itself providing new features (e.g. variables; however, I had to get used to the new interface). Now, if I had to compare it to Axure it'd depend on the project I'm working on. In case of …
Figma is the go-to design tool that can be pushed to production very easily with developer tools. In my opinion it's the most complete design tool that considers the entire design process including the creation of solid design systems, high-fidelity prototyping, user testing, …
Figma is the best for collaborative work. Very easy to learn, so easy that most people dont use it properly (which is good and bad at the same time). Prototyping is where I'd wish it will improve. Axure was awesome.
Figma is much more user friendly and collaborative. It works in your browser and contains everything you need really, whereas Sketch requires other tools to run it properly. It is also much easier to import and export things into Figma, which means we can work across lots of …
Figma is way better than Adobe Illustrator because of its ability to seamlessly integrate multiple use cases like mobile design and vector-based shape building. While Adobe Illustrator is great for adding texture and depth to illustration you can still build high-end …
Figma has more features than Zeplin or Axure. Unlike Zeplin it allows to create and share dynamic prototypes. Unlike Axure it gives tools to create detailed designs.
Figma covers all our use cases. It helps with our design systems, pattern libraries, and prototyping; it's helpful to be cloud-based and sharable. Its plugins and usability for all team members make it very useful. Autolayout functionality is head and shoulders above the rest …
Figma blows these out the park. Adobe's system is very different, and I think this shows in their attempted acquisition of Figma. I've not used Sketch or Invision, but their lack of market presence says a lot—designers like using the best tools. Axure is definitely more …
Figma is often considered superior to Sketch and Adobe XD due to its web-based nature, enabling seamless cross-platform compatibility and real-time collaboration. While Sketch is limited to macOS and Adobe XD offers robust features, Figma's ability to work directly in the …
Previously, we were using more than 1 tool for a specific use case related to design needs, but learned that Figma was more comprehensive, thus we were able to reduce usage of 2+ tools into one saving our overall budget on UX tools. Figma also seems to be an industry-wide …
In theory it can do the all the things these other apps offer. And it does to a certain extend. if your prototypes are not too complex it can completely remove the need for other prototyping software. Through Figjam presentation and collaboration, alternatives provide no extra …
i prefer Miro because it offers better flexibility for both design and team collaboration. miro has a broader canvas than Figma. and it definitely offers better and more features than jam board. as a ui ux designer these are very important for me
Miro is matching our needs best (drawing capacity, scathing ideas, collaborating, voting, interactive work with clients). It loads quickly enough. Colleagues learned basics quickly. We took Miro over Mural as we had a facilitator coach for Miro at hand. They preferred Miro. We …
Miro was embraced by the management since its easy to use and its one UI for many things. We tried FigJam but it didn't work since it's tied to Figma design tool.
As a user who has access to both Miro and FigJam, I would say FigJam has the platform advantage since it's built together with Figma; if you are more into product design and you've already got a subscription to Figma, you are more likely to use FigJam, I mean why not, this …
Since we are a digital product development studio, we already use Figma for Digital Product Design. Because of that, we pay for the platform and most people on the Design/Development team use more the Figma platform. However, for the Business and Marketing Team, it's easier for …
I really like Miro. In my opinion, the two areas that it falls short against FigJam, for me as a designer, is that it's harder to do wireframing in Miro because I can't easily copy and paste my wireframes then into Figma. I also find that the wireframing tools in Figma are …
We generally found cross-functional collaboration and client input to be easier within Miro than with Figma. This related somewhat to the ability ti invite "guests" into the space to participate, and its ease-of-use in-browser.
As a visual person, I really appreciate that Miro already has templates for good looking boards. The selection of colours and the shapes, are perfect and it makes me more motivated to use the app as I actually enjoy what I'm looking at. Also, I find easier the way to expand …
Miro was the better option based on the team members' feedback, user experience, competitive pricing, look and feel, and implementation and use on projects in real-time.
Miro has more features and is more flexible than other products. Freehand, for example, seems to be too focused on wireframes. Additionally, it is now adopted by the entire company, not just the design area, which is how I previously used the other mentioned products.
Although Miro got quite a lot more expensive, it's the best white boarding tool out there. We had a trial where we tried to use Microsoft Teams whiteboards instead but quickly stopped due to the lack of functionalities and poor performance. Compared to other more advanced white …
There are several free sketching tools. In addition, iPads have freeflow which is available to everyone. Miro would definitely have lot more features than free tools but then cost-benefit analysis becomes justified only for users who use several features. For a once in a while …
FigJam and Milanote have better organization and load faster. However, for visual collaborations, I find that it is still easier to use Miro, especially if there are many participants on one board. The specialization focusing on real-time collaboration has made the process very …
Miro offers a more user-friendly Ux/Ui, and it is far easier to work on content collaboratively at the same time. Visio does have the upper hand in snapping objects and connections to some kind of grid which improves organization. Miro also does allow for exporting of frames …
The entry bar for learning how to use Miro is not high. Especially if you use Mac, it glides like butter and it's easy to get started with using it. It has a lot of features that are designed to specify running virtual workshops - which others don't have. It's just not great …
Lucid charts was a bit complex and we had limitation of the overall objects we can build. Here every box or object is not limited therefore it gets easier to make things appropriate and have fully functional board without breaking it down further to make the life and process …
I have also used Lucidchart I used Miro because it was the first platform that I have used and I became proffesional in that, it was much easy to come back and use Miro everytime
First of all, the automatic translation function is very convenient. Since I often collaborate with global employees, translation takes a lot of time, but thanks to the Miro board, I was able to shorten the time significantly. Also, since it provides an optimized environment on …
Figma is a solid design tool to craft the UX design concepts/solutions for digital products. For printed marketing materials such as brochures, marketing flyers, press releases, etc, other design tools such as Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, or InDesign might make more sense to use for those use case scenarios.
The most valuable thing about Miro is it lets us pursue the unavoidably messy process of concept ideation and create sprawling whiteboards with sketches, reference images, text blocks, external links, etc. We do this collaboratively with our teams spread across five states. We sometimes even invite clients to be guests on these boards. What is uniquely valuable about Miro is that we can then create professional-looking presentations from these messy boards simply by placing frames around portions of the board. In the past, we would have had to export our messy work to Powerpoint or Indesign - wasting hours of time. Now, we can make an orderly presentation out of a disorderly process on the fly.
Prototyping in Figma is pretty much nothing more than a glorified slide show. Sure, variables, etc are available but it takes way to long to set them up and even more time when there are revisions needed.
It would be helpful if there were a contextual help system for various functionality. For example, advanced autolayout (like space between) can become very tricky to implement sometimes. I often wish there were an AI assistant to ask for help. I often use ChatGTP to help me through these times.
Searching layers needs to be much easier and more intuitive.
I would like to be able to make groups like the layers palette in Photoshop. That would help with organization and speed a lot.
Figma is a pretty cool tool in many areas. My team almost uses it on daily basis, such as, brainstorming on product/design topics, discussing prototypes created by designers. We even use it for retrospectives, which is super convenient and naturally keeps records of what the team discusses every month. Furthermore, I do see the potential of the product - currently we mainly use it for design topics, but it seems it is also a good fit for tech diagrams, which we probably will explore further in the future.
There is no other tool like Miro for process Mapping in particular. I've tried PowerPoint, Word, and other programs, but when collaborating virtually on how to improve a process, Miro has all of the tools and more to enable successful mapping. The colors, different types of shapes and text books, along with the ability to integrate different documents and other functionality, make it ideal for this purpose. In a virtual world, it's a must-have.
It's easy to use for designers who are familiar with design terms and functions from Photoshop and Illustrator. However, non-tech and non-designer collaborators have a hard time figuring out how to leave comments and apply changes, compared to other online design tools like Canva and Squarespace. Even simple drag-and-drops and rearrangement of certain blocks become too complicated due to uncommon functions like Hug and Lock.
I would rate Miro's overall usability a 10 as well. The platform's intuitive design and user-friendly interface make it incredibly easy to navigate and use, even for those who are new to it. The drag-and-drop functionality, along with a wide range of templates and tools, allows for seamless collaboration and creativity. Additionally, the real-time collaboration features enable our team to work together efficiently, regardless of location. The integration with other tools we use daily further enhances our workflow, making Miro an indispensable part of our toolkit. Overall, Miro's usability has significantly improved our productivity and collaboration, making it a top choice for our team.
I only give a 9/10 because of the speed at which it loads. I have never experienced issues with Miro logging me out early, or some other technical issue causing the program to crash, or even it just loading in perpetuity without ever actually coming up (unlike other programs such as SFDC). It take a minute for all of my boards to come up after I click on it in my favorites, but besides that, it's all good.
I took the loading quickly to be related to availability which I commented on before, so ditto with those comment on load time here. Although to reemphasize, Miro doesn't crash or just refuse to load like some other programs. The weak point of Miro for me is integration of files like Word, Excel, or PowerPoint (especially the later two). When you embed these, it gets slow, and complicated to bring them up while you're in the application.
I haven't used their support lately but in the past, they had a chat that I used often. They often responded in a few hours and were able to give a satisfactory solution. I would imagine it's less personal now but the community has expanded drastically so there are more resources out there to self serve with a bit of Google magic.
We have never reached out to or contacted support because Miro's platform has been incredibly intuitive and user-friendly. The comprehensive resources available, such as tutorials, documentation, and community forums, have provided all the guidance we needed. The seamless integration with our existing tools and the reliability of the platform have ensured that we rarely encounter issues that require external assistance. This self-sufficiency has allowed us to focus more on our projects and collaboration without interruptions. Overall, our experience with Miro has been smooth and efficient, eliminating the need for additional support
In-person training has its own benefits - 1. It helps in resolving queries then and there during the training. 2. I find classroom or in-person training more interactive. 3. Classroom or in-person training could be more practical in nature where participants can have an hands on experience with tools and clarify their doubts with the trainer.
Online training has its own merits and demerits - 1. Sometimes we may face issues with connectivity or the training content 2. The way training is being delivered becomes very important because not everyone is comfortable taking online training and learning by themselves. 3. With the advancement of technology online training has become popular but there is a segment of people who still prefer class-room training over online one.
There was a series of webinars which Miro hosted with our organization that went over the basics, then progressively became more advanced with additional sections. The instructors were knowledgeable, and provided examples throughout the sessions, as well as answered peoples' questions. There was ample time and experience on the calls to cover a range of topics. The instructors were also very friendly and sociable, as well as honest. Of course Miro isn't a "God-tool" that does absolutely everything, but the instructors were aware and emphasized the strengths where Miro had them and sincerely accepted feedback.
So many ways to use Miro, it'd be good to have a basic training for users to do before starting. We're finding there's a vast split amongst our users, some use all the time, and some avoid it heavily. Finding ways to personalize the onboarding experience will be key. Maybe even just an "onboarding template" they can be walked through. It would be good to also have a central management of activity and notifications of when people log-in and work on things.
Figma compared to other tools has user friendly UI which is very easy for all levels of designers. Compared to Adobe XD and Sketch Figma is stable, while in other tools I have faced software crashing in the middle of the work which resulted in loss of data/design. Compared to other tools it's fast and shows less lag. Collaboration in Figma is very easy as it is cloud based but in XD it's not that smooth working with other designers.
Jamboard is slow, didn't always show changes in real time, doesn't support infinite canvas and is more limited in functionality and easy to use than Miro. It goes without saying, but Jamboard is being retired as a product this year. Miro on the other hand has constant updates and new features including AI capabilities.
Miro is great for scaling. In every department and subdivision across my entire organization, there is someone using it. From Sales to marketing, to manufacturing and operations; and even in legal and finance, there isn't a process or a department that is not using Miro, and if they aren't, they're missing out! Even at the highest to the lowest levels of the organization, it is essential for virtual collaboration.
It has positively impacted the organization of my workload and projects. I use the Kanban with Cards, which helps me keep track of all the initiatives and actions I'm currently working on in a very organized way, as well as keep a record of the completed ones.
Of course, by implementing the abovementioned, I can see I've become more effective in delivering projects and can say im managing my time better during the week.
My visuals and diagrams have reached another level; even if I need to transfer to PDF or PPT, Miro allows me to visualize the processes and diagrams beautifully.