FigJam
7.1Figma's whiteboard with AI-assisted clustering, voting and a free tier that includes meaningful AI credits
FigJam is the whiteboard product inside Figma — sticky notes, voting, timer, audio, music, expressive cursor stamps, an AI co-pilot that clusters and summarises sticky notes, and dozens of community retro templates. Sits inside the Figma platform so design and product teams already living there get retros without buying a second tool, with Figma's strong SSO/SCIM and SOC 2 enterprise posture on Org+/Enterprise plans.
Full review →
Miro
7.0Innovation Workspace where retros happen on the same canvas as discovery and planning
Miro is the dominant online whiteboard, now repositioned as an AI-powered Innovation Workspace. It pairs an infinite canvas with a huge template library (300+ retro formats among thousands of community templates), AI clustering by sentiment/keyword/author, Sidekicks (AI teammates) and Flows (multi-step AI workflows), real-time + async collaboration, and a 250+ app marketplace including Jira, Azure DevOps, Asana, Linear, Confluence, Slack and Microsoft Teams.
Full review →Summary
FigJam scores 7.1 overall and is best for design and product teams already on Figma who want retros on the same platform as their design files, with playful engagement and AI clustering. It offers a free tier.
Miro scores 7.0 overall and is best for large product, design and engineering orgs that already run discovery, planning and retros on one canvas and want AI clustering plus deep Jira/Azure DevOps/Asana sync. It offers a free tier.
FigJam leads on value, fun factor and open platform. Miro leads on retro toolkit, AI & insights and integrations.
Across our eight scoring dimensions, FigJam edges ahead with an overall score of 7.1. That said, the right pick depends on your team — see the dimension-by-dimension breakdown below.
Scores compared
| Detail | FigJam | Miro |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Whiteboard | Whiteboard |
| Team size | Mid-market | Enterprise |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Free limit | Starter: 3 FigJam boards per team (unlimited personal drafts), 150 AI credits/day (500/month), community templates | 3 editable boards, ~10 AI credits/mo, full template library, 250+ app marketplace; no private boards or two-way integrations |
| Starting price | $3/user/mo | $8/user/mo |
| Est. 3 teams × 8 people | ~$72/mo (24 Collab seats × $3, annual) — more if hosts need Full seats | $192/mo billed annually (Starter, 24 seats) |
| Enterprise | Yes | Yes |
| Founded | 2012 | 2011 |
| HQ | San Francisco, US | Amsterdam, NL |
| Data residency | United States | United States · European Union · Australia |
| Languages | English only | 8 (English, Spanish, German, …) |
| Export formats | PDF · Image · CSV | Image · PDF · CSV |
| Features | 39 | 37 |
| Integrations | 9 | 11 |
Feature & integration comparison
Side-by-side checklist across features, integrations and security. Hover a note for details.
| Capability | FigJam | Miro |
|---|---|---|
| Features | ||
| AI Summaries | ✓ | ✓ |
| AI grouping/clustering | ✓ | ✓ |
| AI action items | ✓note | — |
| Action tracking | — | ✓note |
| Team Insights | — | — |
| Polling | ✓ | ✓note |
| Action dashboard | — | — |
| Custom templates | ✓ | ✓ |
| Anonymous input | — | ✓note |
| Independent voting | ✓ | ✓ |
| Async mode | ✓ | ✓ |
| Agile Estimations | ✓note | ✓note |
| Health Checks | — | — |
| Team Kudos | ✓note | — |
| Whiteboard | ✓ | ✓ |
| Integrations | ||
| Asana | ✓ | ✓note |
| Azure DevOps | — | ✓note |
| Basecamp | — | — |
| ClickUp | — | ✓ |
| Confluence | ✓ | ✓ |
| GitHub | ✓note | ✓note |
| GitLab | — | — |
| Jira | ✓ | ✓note |
| Linear | ✓note | ✓note |
| Microsoft Teams | ✓note | ✓ |
| Monday.com | ✓note | — |
| Notion | ✓note | ✓ |
| Shortcut | — | — |
| Slack | ✓ | ✓ |
| Trello | — | ✓note |
| Security & Privacy | ||
| SOC 2 | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| SSO / SAML | ✓note | ✓note |
| SCIM provisioning | ✓note | ✓note |
| ISO 27001 | ✓ | ✓ |
| On-premises | — | — |
| Public API | ✓ | ✓ |
| Webhooks | ✓ | — |
| MCP server | ✓note | ✓note |
FigJam — pros
- + Cheap $3/user/mo Collab seat unlocks unlimited boards without a full Figma editor seat
- + Free tier includes real AI credits (150/day, 500/month) and the full retro toolkit
- + Same login and platform as Figma — zero friction for design-led teams
- + Playful, engaging UX (audio, music, stamps, expressive cursors) lifts retro fun factor
- + Strong enterprise posture inherited from Figma: SAML, SCIM, SOC 2, ISO 27001
FigJam — cons
- − No native action-item tracking, recurring retros or health checks
- − Anonymous mode is weak — no built-in 'private until reveal' equivalent
- − Issue-tracker links (Jira, GitHub) are widget-based, not action-item sync; no Azure DevOps
- − Free Starter caps teams at 3 FigJam boards — a recurring retro practice outgrows it fast
- − Built primarily for designers; agile coaches sometimes find the canvas paradigm fiddly for structured retros
Miro — pros
- + Enormous template library (5,000+) and Miroverse community for retro formats
- + AI clustering groups sticky notes by sentiment, tag, author and keyword; Sidekicks and Flows extend AI deeper into the canvas
- + Best-in-class integration catalog (Jira, Azure DevOps, Asana, Linear, ClickUp, Confluence, Slack, Teams) with two-way card sync
- + Enterprise-grade SSO, SCIM, audit logs, ISO 27001, ISO 42001 (AI governance) and EU/US/AU data residency
- + Same canvas works for discovery, planning and retros — no context switching
Miro — cons
- − Per-seat pricing: a 24-person org pays ~$192/mo on the Starter tier (annual), well above retro-native tools at that headcount
- − No native health checks, mood tracking or longitudinal team-pulse
- − No recurring retros, scheduling, action carryover or cross-team rollup — facilitators rebuild structure each sprint
- − Full two-way card sync (Linear, ClickUp, Azure DevOps) and SSO sit behind the $20/user/mo Business tier; SCIM and audit logs only on Enterprise (30-seat min)
- − No built-in retro report or action-tracker dashboard
Keep comparing
Other FigJam comparisons
Other Miro comparisons
See alternatives
Not sure which to pick? Read our guide on how to choose a retrospective tool.