Robust Collaborative Tool for UX Designers
Updated May 21, 2025

Robust Collaborative Tool for UX Designers

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 7 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Miro

We use Miro as a first instance UX collaborative tool. It is not only applied for presentation of project deliverables (e.g. user personas, value proposition, wireframes, etc.), but also as a shared workshop space. We mainly focus on running/facilitating workshops with several people, so extensive space and collaboration features allow us to collect necessary feedback and plan further steps of the process adequately. All in all we use Miro to collect data necessary for work on all stages of the process - starting from the research, through workshops and wireframing, and ending on usability tests' deliverables. It's often used for brainstorming between the designers or the designers and stakeholders.

Pros

  • share with people without a license
  • extensive space for workshops where several people are involved
  • user-friendly interface
  • variety of tools that may be applied during workshops
  • appealing interface

Cons

  • Cannot zoom out to see the entire board when there's a lot on it or frames are huge
  • I cannot see that the frame's selected when zoomed in (often change to hand, which doesn't work, but changes the name of the frame)
  • Predefined color of arrows for wireframes (I sometimes need to change 2 or 3 to show positive/negative outcome, and then I need to get back to the default one again, which is a little bit annoying)
  • Automated notification saying that someone has changed/added something on the board would be nice
  • Quick feedback gathering which is crucial for designing
  • Engage stakeholders to contribute to the project
  • Improved work in internal teams (brainstorming platform)
It has a huge impact where applied. As stated before, the main advantage of Miro is enabling instant feedback collection or gathering it beyond official sessions or workshops. This allows us to quickly improve/modify elements of the project or to discuss new client-proposed solutions. Plus anyone may get back to the board and review it on any stage of the project, which often is a must, when considering history of the project and its agreed elements.
It is quite similar to FigJam, but I have a feeling that it's focusing on the collaboration part, whereas FigJam is an addition to Figma, which is clearly a UI-oriented prototyping tool. It's clearer and more user-friendly than Mural. I use Miro in 90% of cases - FigJam is used only when cooperating with other designers using it.

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?

I wasn't involved with the implementation phase

Would you buy Miro again?

Yes

It is a very good solution for anyone looking for a platform that may be used during the workshops to collect feedback. It's also good for keeping up with the project, where anyone may comment the board beyond the workshop. It also works nicely for internal brainstorming sessions, where you may work on a final deliverable and present it to the users/stakeholders.

Comments

More Reviews of Miro