In a hybrid world, whiteboards have gone digital.
Where teams once gathered around glass walls and sticky notes, they now meet in infinite canvases.
Two names dominate that space: Miro and FigJam.
Both claim to make collaboration effortless. Both can transform your team's creative energy.
But they’re built for subtly different purposes — and choosing the right one matters for how your team thinks, designs, and decides.
For fast-growing scale-ups, this isn’t a tech choice — it’s a workflow philosophy.
At a Glance
Miro – Comprehensive, enterprise-ready platform for strategy, process, and team collaboration.
FigJam – Lightweight, playful tool built for design teams and creative collaboration.
Recommended Tool: Execution Rhythm Playbook
1. Why whiteboarding matters more than ever
Collaboration used to happen in hallways, stand-ups, and war rooms.
Now, it happens across time zones, tools, and screens.
That shift exposed a painful truth:
Most teams aren’t bad at ideas — they’re bad at alignment.
Virtual whiteboards like Miro and FigJam bridge that gap.
They turn abstract discussions into visible shared understanding.
The question is no longer “Do we need one?”
It’s “Which one fits how we work?”
2. Miro: the operating system for visual collaboration
The philosophy
Miro’s mission is to connect every team across the organisation — not just design or product.
It’s a platform, not just a canvas.
It’s designed for workshops, planning, roadmaps, retros, strategy sessions, and more — effectively replacing the physical whiteboard with a digital command centre.
Key strengths
- Huge library of templates for every function (OKRs, retros, mind maps, user flows).
- Enterprise-grade integrations with Jira, Asana, Notion, and Slack.
- Deep permissions and access controls for large organisations.
- Excellent for async collaboration and documentation.
- Highly scalable — one board can support dozens of simultaneous collaborators.
Limitations
- Can feel complex or heavy for small, fast-moving teams.
- Requires onboarding and facilitation skill for effective use.
- Visual design feels utilitarian — less playful than FigJam.
Best for:
Cross-functional teams that need structured collaboration, especially in product, ops, or leadership planning.
3. FigJam: the creative playground for design-led teams
The philosophy
FigJam is Figma’s answer to Miro — a whiteboard that feels like a conversation, not a workshop.
It’s fast, intuitive, and fun.
You can start brainstorming within seconds.
Key strengths
- Seamless integration with Figma — perfect for product and design workflows.
- Simple, low-friction interface ideal for rapid ideation.
- Fun, human touches — emojis, cursors, stickers, sound effects.
- Excellent for synchronous brainstorming and creative sessions.
- Native support for design systems and UX flows.
Limitations
- Lacks advanced facilitation and enterprise management tools.
- Limited template variety beyond design and brainstorming.
- Harder to use for structured ops or strategy sessions.
Best for:
Creative, design-led teams that prioritise flow, speed, and culture of collaboration.
4. Miro vs FigJam: head-to-head comparison
| Dimension | Miro | FigJam |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Audience | Cross-functional orgs | Product & design teams |
| Interface | Structured, professional | Playful, minimalist |
| Ease of Use | Moderate (requires setup) | Very easy (instant use) |
| Templates | Extensive, multi-discipline | Creative & visual-focused |
| Integration Depth | Jira, Notion, Asana, Slack | Figma, Slack |
| Async Collaboration | Excellent | Moderate |
| Facilitation Tools | Advanced (timers, voting, frameworks) | Basic |
| Enterprise Features | SSO, admin controls, analytics | Minimal |
| Cost | Higher (tiered plans) | Lower (per-seat) |
| Best Fit | Scaling, structured teams | Creative, agile teams |
Miro is your digital strategy room.
FigJam is your idea playground.
Each delivers collaboration — in very different tones.
5. The organisational lens: structure vs spontaneity
This choice isn’t just about software; it’s about culture.
- Miro fits organisations that run on process, planning, and documentation.
- FigJam fits teams that thrive on creativity, spontaneity, and flow.
In other words:
- If you run OKRs and retros religiously → Miro.
- If you start with sketches and post-its → FigJam.
The danger comes when you use one tool but behave like the other.
6. The psychological factor: design for emotion
Miro feels professional — structured, serious, capable.
FigJam feels personal — expressive, joyful, collaborative.
These tones matter.
A FigJam workshop sparks laughter; a Miro session sparks alignment.
The trick is knowing when to switch gears.
Leaders who choose tools that fit their team’s emotional energy get better participation — and faster decisions.
7. When Miro wins
- Company-wide retros, planning, or strategy offsites.
- Remote OKR alignment or roadmap building.
- Documenting repeatable workflows and decisions.
- Training, onboarding, or async collaboration.
Miro is built for scale — hundreds of people, multiple departments, high coordination.
If you’re running leadership cadences or multi-team workshops, it’s your canvas of choice.
8. When FigJam wins
- Design sprints and creative ideation.
- Product discovery sessions.
- Quick, informal collaboration.
- Lightweight visualisation for async handoffs.
FigJam is built for momentum — fast thinking, shared creativity, and team energy.
It’s where ideas start — before they mature into structure.
9. The hybrid reality: using both
Most scale-ups end up using both tools — intentionally or not.
- Product and design teams live in FigJam.
- Operations, leadership, and marketing live in Miro.
The key is integration, not competition.
Create a simple framework:
- FigJam for exploration → Miro for documentation.
- Ideas in → Decisions out.
This prevents tool fragmentation while preserving creative flow.
10. Integration ecosystem
| Function | Miro Strength | FigJam Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Product Development | Workflow and roadmap alignment | UX mapping, ideation |
| Marketing Ops | Campaign planning | Creative concepting |
| Strategy / OKRs | Templates and frameworks | Limited |
| Design | Integration with Jira, Notion | Deep native link with Figma |
| Leadership / Ops | Visual collaboration at scale | Limited scalability |
Both tools integrate with Slack, Notion, and Google Workspace — but FigJam’s integration with Figma makes it the obvious choice for design-centric teams.
11. Adoption patterns in scale-ups
Typical evolution looks like this:
| Stage | Team Size | Primary Tool | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Startup (0–30) | Small | FigJam | Fast ideation and visual collaboration |
| Scale-up (30–150) | Growing | Miro | Need for structured workflows |
| Mature (150–500+) | Cross-functional | Both | Cross-department alignment |
| Enterprise (500+) | Complex | Miro | Governance and control |
The best approach isn’t to pick one forever — it’s to adapt tools to your stage of growth.
12. Facilitation and adoption tips
For Miro:
- Assign a board owner for each recurring process.
- Use templates — don’t build from scratch.
- Train facilitators to drive engagement.
- Link boards into Notion or project tools for visibility.
For FigJam:
- Keep boards lightweight — avoid clutter.
- Use emoji reactions and quick tools to maintain energy.
- Sync design and feedback loops in real time.
- Use templates for brainstorming, mapping, and retros.
Collaboration tools are only as good as their rituals.
13. The cost equation
| Category | Miro | FigJam |
|---|---|---|
| Base Plan | $8–$16 per user/month | $3–$12 per user/month |
| Free Tier | Limited boards | Generous |
| Enterprise Controls | SSO, analytics, permissions | Minimal |
| Scalability | Excellent | Moderate |
| Learning Curve | Higher | Lower |
Miro is more expensive, but the ROI shows in operational alignment.
FigJam is cheaper — and frictionless for smaller teams.
14. The collaboration archetypes
| Team Type | Best Tool | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Design teams | FigJam | Visual ideation and real-time creativity |
| Ops & Strategy teams | Miro | Framework-driven decisioning |
| Cross-functional squads | Both | Ideate in FigJam, consolidate in Miro |
| Fully remote teams | Miro | Async clarity and documentation |
| Hybrid creative teams | FigJam | Speed and engagement |
Matching the tool to the rhythm of the work increases adoption and output quality.
15. Leadership takeaway: tool choice signals culture
Choosing between Miro and FigJam isn’t just an operational decision — it’s a cultural one.
- Miro signals rigour, structure, and operational maturity.
- FigJam signals creativity, openness, and play.
The best scale-ups combine both: clarity from Miro, energy from FigJam.
See: Org Design Playbook
16. Case studies
Figma (obviously):
Built FigJam to bring fun back into collaboration — used internally to shorten design cycles and reduce meeting fatigue.
Atlassian:
Uses Miro for scaled planning across product, engineering, and marketing — with thousands of boards linked to Jira and Confluence.
Canva:
Adopts both tools — FigJam for design sprints and Miro for leadership planning and process mapping.
Each case reinforces the principle: the right tool for the right rhythm.
17. Common pitfalls
- Too many tools, no consistency.
- No facilitation — blank boards that intimidate teams.
- Over-designing boards instead of discussing ideas.
- Ignoring async collaboration — relying only on workshops.
The antidote is discipline: define use cases, ownership, and outcomes for every board.
18. The founder’s decision framework
Ask yourself:
- Is collaboration more creative or operational?
- Do we need structured facilitation or quick ideation?
- How many teams will use it?
- Does it need to integrate with design workflows or planning tools?
- Do we value polish or playfulness?
Your answers will tell you where to start — and when to evolve.
19. The hybrid future of collaboration
The future isn’t Miro or FigJam — it’s orchestration.
AI is already blending these experiences — summarising boards, tagging insights, generating action plans.
The next frontier is intelligent collaboration, not digital whiteboarding.
Your real differentiator will be how well your people use these tools to think together, not which tool they pick.
20. Conclusion: clarity meets creativity
Miro and FigJam serve the same mission — to help teams visualise thinking and build together — but from opposite directions.
- Miro builds clarity.
- FigJam builds creativity.
The best companies don’t choose between them — they design workflows where ideas flow from FigJam to Miro without losing energy or structure.
Because collaboration isn’t about pixels on a board.
It’s about creating the conditions where thinking becomes shared, visible, and actionable.
Recommended next step:
Use the Execution Rhythm Playbook to design your collaboration rituals and tool strategy.
Ready to see where your business stands? Take the free Founder Diagnostic.