I love the wealth of templates Miro offers, which let me hit the ground running whenever a new initiative arises. The widgets, especially the Kanban and Table views, make tracking team progress refreshingly simple and allow me to lay out contractor accounts in a structured format. I also value how readily a board syncs and updates, so moving between viewing modes never breaks my concentration. Above all, the visual canvas gives me a natural space to capture ideas as they take form. The initial setup was very straightforward, with templates having me up and running almost immediately. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It concerns the desktop application, which crashes from time to time, usually on whichever board I had open most recently. It is a minor inconvenience rather than a genuine obstacle, yet it does interrupt the flow when I am mid-session. The most helpful fix would be for Miro to improve how the desktop app handles larger, content-heavy boards, since that is usually when the crashes occur, and adding a more reliable auto-recovery that restores the board exactly as I left it, along with a lightweight warning when a board is growing too complex for the app to handle smoothly, would go a long way toward keeping my planning sessions uninterrupted. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I love how Miro naturally draws people into working together, making it easy to think through designs with teammates scattered across locations, as we can all shape the same board at once. The ideas take form in real-time instead of getting lost in threads. The intuitive canvas, ready-made templates, and even simple features like sticky notes make organizing work quicker. Miro's integrations with tools I already use streamline the workflow, particularly with Jira and Slack, keeping my tasks connected and team communications seamless. Plus, the initial setup was quite easy with no significant issues. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

That said, its very richness can weigh it down. On a large piece of work a board tends to sprawl, and finding my way back to the part that matters grows fiddly once the canvas fills up. A handful of the more capable features sit behind paid tiers as well, and when a board swells to a certain size the responsiveness begins to flag. None of this is fatal, yet it does ask for a measure of discipline. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I use Miro for creating marketing workflows and whiteboards, and it helps me see the entire workflow in a visually appealing manner. I like the visual elements and tool options available to create whiteboards, and I find the different box options particularly useful. These features help me quickly create workflows, and visually, it looks really good when presenting. The initial setup was super easy, making it readily accessible for my needs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Pricing is a bit much compared to other tools. If they reduce that, that would be helpful. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like Miro for its flexibility in usage. It's a simple tool but can be as complex or as simple as you'd like. It's really easy to throw ideas down without feeling like you have to be a perfectionist. Miro is an excellent way to brainstorm and visualize thoughts. I find it valuable for collaborating with others remotely in a way that still feels organic and free-form. The tool is especially useful for teams not located in the same place, offering a way to whiteboard together virtually. It's also helpful for visualizing ideas, reviewing concepts, writing notes, and performing ranked voting. We use it for a lot of different purposes like process diagrams, mind maps, and heuristic analysis. The sticky note feature is great for identifying improvement areas, and it allows us to go back and grow boards over time, giving us an ongoing archive of our work. Miro is something we use in many different ways, and it's probably one of our most used tools aside from basic work documents. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

As part of my job I do a lot of wireframing, which is a feature that Miro promotes. I've found that some of the other tools I've used are better suited for this, and have more features for wireframing. Miro does an ok job but it's not exactly purpose-made for wireframing and is missing the depth that other wireframing tools have. I think that is a feature they could improve if they want to be a player in the wireframing tool space. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I was spending way too much time re-explaining the same user flows every time something changed. I’d build them in Figma, export frames as images, drop them into a doc, and send it over—and the moment one step shifted, the whole thing was outdated. A PM I was working with had used Miro at a previous company and suggested I try it for a product mapping session. That single session was enough to convince me.

What I kept coming back to was the connector behavior. When you’re mapping a flow with branching logic, you can drag a line from one shape, snap it to another, and when you move things around, the connectors re-route on their own. In Figma, I was manually nudging arrow endpoints every time I restructured something, and that basically stopped entirely.

Another feature I genuinely use is sticky note voting. I’d put ideas on the board, share the link, and my co-founder could dot-vote async without us needing a call. It’s a small thing, but it noticeably reduced our alignment calls during ideation phases.

The shareability also surprised me. I can paste a link in Slack and someone can open it and comment without an account. For a small team where not everyone lives in the same tools, that removes a lot of friction.

One thing that took me embarrassingly long to find: you can right-click on an empty part of the board to create a frame directly, without going back to the toolbar. Once I found it, I started using it constantly.

Overall, it feels best suited for product designers or startup founders who need collaborative thinking and product mapping across async teams. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

My biggest frustration came up during a live product walkthrough with a potential collaborator. I was zooming in and out to cover different sections of a large board, and there was a consistent half-second delay as the canvas caught up after each zoom. It wasn’t catastrophic, but it was noticeable enough that I stopped doing live board walkthroughs and started exporting a PDF instead. For a tool where the whole point is sharing the board, that workaround felt backwards.

The template library has also been less useful than I expected. I’d search for something like “user journey” and get fifteen results where maybe two were actually relevant; the rest seemed only loosely tagged. In the end, I ignored templates and built from scratch every time. That’s fine, but I went in expecting the library to save time, and it didn’t.

The main feature I’d genuinely like to see added is a proper section lock. If I have a finalized flow on one side of a board and an in-progress area on the other, there’s no clean way to lock the finished section. You can group elements and hope collaborators don’t ungroup them, but that’s not really a solution. It’s the kind of thing that starts to matter once your boards are shared with more than one or two people. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like best about Miro is its ability to blend structure with creativity during innovation sessions. It works incredibly well for presenting process flows while simultaneously capturing the team's brainstorming and process improvement ideas in real-time. It keeps everyone engaged and makes collaborative planning seamless. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The learning curve for first-time users or external clients can be a bit steep during live sessions. Also, when boards get crowded with lots of ideas and elements, performance can lag, and it's easy for participants to accidentally move parts of the process flow that were already set. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Miro's ease of use is fantastic. It's intuitive, has plenty of features that make planning with (remote) teams not only effective but fun.

We integrate Miro with Claude and use latest technologies to get even more out of the tool.

Miro works great on newer computers, on older laptops (5+ years old) the performance demand on the machine is noticable. But then again, this gives the user a good reason to ask their manage for an upgrade.

Mire is worth its price compared to other free or bundled solutions. Where others try, Miro delivers and therefore worth the cost.

Miro's onboarding and support were best-in-class and it was a breeze to get everything started and our organization of 130 people ready to use the tool in no time. Miro also has AI tools that we haven't used yet, so I cannot comment too much on those. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Performance issues on older machines and sometimes the zoom level seems to have a life on its own. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The infinite canvas is ideal for brainstorming, we brainstorm entire projects on the canvas. Flowcharts, wireframes and retrospectives take hours to set-up, and templates eliminate that time. Real-time collaboration is where remote team members can make contributions while the action is happening. The sticky notes are more useful than whiteboards for ideation sessions. We achieved seamless workflow with Slack and Jira integration. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

There are limitations on boards and collaborators with the free version. If there are lots of elements on large boards, they tend to become laggy. It's not easy to get the curve of learning of more advanced features. Sometimes the formatting is lost when exporting complex boards. There is less functionality on mobile than desktop. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Here’s the rewrite:

I only just got to explore Miro Canvas 26 today, so this is very much a first-impressions take, but honestly it’s been a fun few hours.

The thing that struck me right away: the AI features don’t feel bolted on. That’s rarer than it should be. A lot of tools right now are dropping AI into existing workflows and calling it a day, but here it actually feels like the AI was considered from the start. How people brainstorm, how they make sense of messy ideas, how collaboration actually works when you’re in a room (or a board) together.

I come at this from a UX research and product background, so I’m probably more attuned than most to when something feels designed versus just shipped. And these flows feel designed.

The boards themselves are just… engaging? Even in a review or feedback setting, which can get heavy fast, the structure and interactions make the whole thing feel lighter. That matters more than people give it credit for. Keeping teams genuinely present and involved over long sessions is hard, and good interaction design quietly does a lot of that work.

What I didn’t expect: I kept thinking about personal uses. Career mapping, long-term planning, just getting thoughts out of my head and into something that makes sense. There’s an approachability to it that makes you want to keep going.

Tomas’s keynote was a big part of what got me thinking differently about this. Something about the way he framed where Miro is heading just clicked, and now I want to actually test it. Going forward I’m planning to prototype as much as possible directly in Miro and start building out more autonomous workflows using these tools. Less bouncing between apps, more thinking and building in one place.

Very early days, but I’m genuinely curious to see where this goes with regular use. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Here’s a natural, balanced version that fits the tone of the rest:

Where it gets harder for me to make the switch fully is UI work. For building out full UI workflows and going directly from design to build, Figma is still where I live. There’s something about being able to stay in one place from wireframe to handoff that I haven’t found a reason to move away from. The fewer platforms in that particular process, the better.

So for UX specifically, Figma is still the stronger tool in my opinion. The depth of the UI workflow, the way it handles components and prototyping, the direct path to actually building, it’s hard to compete with that. Miro doesn’t need to be that though, and I don’t think it’s trying to be.

The way I’m starting to think about it is less either/or and more about what each tool is actually good for. Miro for thinking, synthesizing, collaborating and now increasingly for prototyping ideas and building autonomous workflows. Figma for UI design and anything that needs to go somewhere buildable. They serve different moments in the process, and forcing one to do the other’s job usually just creates friction. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

As an Agile Coach, what I like most about Miro is the flexibility. I can create different experiences for each workshop, from retrospectives to strategic planning, using voting, timer, templates, and automations to facilitate collaboration and decision-making. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like the least is that there are still some features missing to facilitate the maintenance of large boards. For example, it would be very useful to be able to automatically update the same information in multiple places on the board at the same time, avoiding repetitive manual edits. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.