1. Home
  2. Visual Collaboration Software
  3. Miro Reviews
  4. User Review of Miro
Miro is best to dig deep, but has a high barrier of entry
August 08, 2022

Miro is best to dig deep, but has a high barrier of entry

Emmanuel Tauch | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 5 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Miro

We use it both for remote client workshops and for visualising internal information and processes. Due to the interface, name and use case being so similar to MURAL, there is often confusion about the two services, especially since my coworkers have personal preferences. Overall I would say that Miro would be my go-to for working with fellow designers, and on anything that requires more detailed tools, whereas MURAL is better for onboarding non-designers due to the simpler UI. MURAL and FigJam are also typically used for quick and simple means to display and share information with colleagues. This is the reason I rarely use Miro these days, when it was my go-to application before I started working at Fjord.
  • Templates that support workshop facilitation.
  • High degree of customisation.
  • Integration of outside search engines/ tools.
  • Onboarding of new users.
  • Quick overview of the whole board.
  • Possibility to "keep a tighter leash" on workshop participants, as they tend to get lost on larger boards.
  • In-app communication with collaborators.
  • It has been helpful with archiving information visually.
  • The loading times of boards are often long, which creates frustration when I open the wrong board. The preview should give me a better visual representation, to make sure I am opening the right project.
The implementation is usually smooth. What I like in particular and would like to see enhanced, is the possibility to download high resolution images of my projects, perhaps as a prearranged selection of the highlights. I would also like to see more interactive widgets, for instance for voting within workshops.
Like I said before, Miro has a fairly complex user interface, and is thus easier to use with experienced users. It is not a tool I can easily "jump into" with non designer colleagues or clients. This complex interface allows for much more customisation and visual fidelity, but maybe there should be a "simple mode" that would allow me to onboard new users without overwhelming them.
At the beginning of the pandemic Miro, which I had only sparingly used before, turned out to be a real lifesaver, allowing me to continue projects that I had been running in person until then. I would say that Miro was essential to our continued collaboration then, and has since forever changed the way we work, probably for the better, at least environmentally, since we now travel less. But it still does not offer the same ease or depth of information that in-person workshops provide.

Do you think Miro delivers good value for the price?

Yes

Are you happy with Miro's feature set?

Yes

Did Miro live up to sales and marketing promises?

I wasn't involved with the selection/purchase process

Did implementation of Miro go as expected?

Yes

Would you buy Miro again?

Yes

I use all of these products, often depending on whatever software a project has already been set up on, or personal preferences from colleagues or clients. In summary I would say that MURAL is my go-to software for quick and easy projects, especially with non-designers. If I know something is being set up for the long haul, I will consider Miro, since it will offer me more options down the line. FigJam I only use rarely, mostly when I don't have access to internet.
It is well suited to in-depth workshops with somewhat experienced users, as well as long-term projects and projects that require a high degree of visual polish and customisability. It is also good when I am looking for high compatibility with other productivity tools, and connections to outside apps within my board. It is less suited for plug-and-play style interactions when I just need to quickly drop and arrange information visually.