Miro review
March 13, 2025
Miro review
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Overall Satisfaction with Miro
We use Miro for Collaboration with boards like story mapping, retrospective, impact mapping.
We also use to capture Roadmap planning drawings and technical architecture drawings. Both high-level architecture diagrams as detailed technical diagrams, for example for AWS architectures.
We also use to capture Roadmap planning drawings and technical architecture drawings. Both high-level architecture diagrams as detailed technical diagrams, for example for AWS architectures.
Pros
- Collaboration: working with a team on a shared board, brainstorming on a shared board
- Working with predefined concept, like mind-maps, AWS diagrams and so on
- Providing example templates of boards, lot's of examples to help you get started
Cons
- Better support for adding rich text boxes, often you want to comment on a drawing but the possibilities to create a nice formatted text field are limited
- Better support for highly technical drawings like 4+1 diagrams
- A more guided approach (like plantuml for example) would be nice
- The organization and sizing of multiple frames within a board can be time-consuming
- Improved collaboration, for example during impact mapping
- Easier to share diagrams
The collaboration feature was a key motivation for the Miro adoption. It helps not only for remote workers but also with collaborations with consultants.
Miro focuses more on collaboration, and that was the key feature we were looking for.
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?
Yes
Did implementation of Miro go as expected?
Yes
Would you buy Miro again?
Yes
Comments
Please log in to join the conversation