FigJam
7.2Figma's whiteboard with AI sticky clustering, voting sessions and a $3 Collab seat — free tier caps at 3 boards
FigJam is the whiteboard product inside Figma — sticky notes, timer, music, expressive cursor stamps, voting sessions, an AI co-pilot that clusters and summarises stickies, and 300+ ready-made templates including community retro boards. Design and product teams already living in Figma get retros without buying a second tool, backed by Figma's SAML/SCIM, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and EU data hosting on Organization and Enterprise plans. Voting sessions, audio chat and no-account guest links all require a paid team.
Full review →
Simyl Flow
5.4Measure what ships and sticks
Simyl Flow is an outcomes measurement platform for engineering teams in which the retrospective is one of five linked ceremonies (planning poker, standups, demo prep, retros, coaching). Retro boards are pre-populated with six sprint metrics pulled from Jira, Linear, GitHub and CI, AI generates candidate cards from the data, and unfinished action items carry forward — all feeding a six-dimension team health score tracked sprint over sprint.
Full review →Summary
FigJam scores 7.2 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.
Simyl Flow scores 5.4 overall and is best for engineering orgs that already run retros and want them wired into delivery data — teams asking whether last sprint's improvement actually moved cycle time, review latency or change-failure rate, rather than teams shopping for a better sticky-note board. It offers a free tier.
FigJam leads on fun factor, open platform and enterprise-grade. Simyl Flow leads on retro toolkit, AI & insights and integrations.
Across our eight scoring dimensions, FigJam edges ahead with an overall score of 7.2. That said, the right pick depends on your team — see the dimension-by-dimension breakdown below.
Scores compared
| Detail | FigJam | Simyl Flow |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Whiteboard | All-in-One Agile |
| Team size | Mid-market | Mid-market |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Free limit | Starter: 3 FigJam files per team (unlimited personal drafts), 150 AI credits/day (500/month), templates, timer and music, 30-day version history — no voting sessions, audio chat or open (no-account) sessions | 1 team, 10 stakeholders, 2 retros + 2 poker sessions/month, 1 integration, 90-day retention, CSV export |
| Starting price | $3/user/mo | $29/team/mo |
| Est. 3 teams × 8 people | ~$72/mo (24 Collab seats × $3, annual) — more if hosts need Full seats | $87/mo (Pro — flat $29 per team × 3 teams; $72/mo billed annually) |
| Enterprise | Yes | Yes |
| Founded | 2012 | 2024 |
| HQ | San Francisco, US | — |
| Data residency | United States · European Union | United States |
| Languages | English only | English only |
| Export formats | PDF · Image · CSV | CSV |
| Features | 39 | 24 |
| Integrations | 10 | 9 |
Feature & integration comparison
Side-by-side checklist across features, integrations and security. Hover a note for details.
| Capability | FigJam | Simyl Flow |
|---|---|---|
| Features | ||
| AI Summaries | ✓ | ✓ |
| AI grouping/clustering | ✓ | — |
| AI action items | ✓note | — |
| Action tracking | — | ✓ |
| Team Insights | — | ✓note |
| Polling | ✓ | — |
| Action dashboard | — | ✓ |
| Custom templates | ✓ | ✓ |
| Anonymous input | — | — |
| Independent voting | ✓note | ✓ |
| Async mode | ✓ | ✓note |
| Agile Estimations | ✓note | ✓note |
| Health Checks | — | ✓note |
| Team Kudos | ✓note | ✓note |
| Whiteboard | ✓ | — |
| Integrations | ||
| Asana | ✓note | — |
| Azure DevOps | — | — |
| Basecamp | — | — |
| ClickUp | — | ✓note |
| Confluence | ✓note | — |
| GitHub | ✓note | ✓note |
| GitLab | — | ✓note |
| Jira | ✓note | ✓note |
| Linear | ✓note | ✓note |
| Microsoft Teams | ✓note | ✓note |
| Monday.com | ✓note | — |
| Notion | ✓note | ✓note |
| Shortcut | — | ✓note |
| Slack | ✓note | ✓note |
| Trello | ✓note | — |
| Security & Privacy | ||
| SOC 2 | ✓ | ✓note |
| GDPR | ✓ | ✓ |
| SSO / SAML | ✓note | ✓note |
| SCIM provisioning | ✓note | — |
| ISO 27001 | ✓ | ✓note |
| On-premises | — | ✓note |
| Public API | ✓ | — |
| Webhooks | ✓ | — |
| MCP server | ✓note | ✓ |
FigJam — pros
- + Cheap $3/user/mo Collab seat unlocks unlimited boards without a full Figma editor seat
- + Free Starter tier includes real AI credits (150/day, 500/month), 300+ templates, the timer and music
- + Same login and platform as Figma — zero friction for design-led teams
- + Playful, engaging UX — stamps, emotes, high-fives, music, cursor chat — lifts retro fun factor
- + Strong enterprise posture inherited from Figma: SAML, SCIM, activity logs, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, EU data hosting on Enterprise
FigJam — cons
- − No native action-item tracking, recurring retros or health checks
- − Anonymity is weak — votes reveal who voted once the session ends, and stickies always carry a name
- − Official connectors embed Figma files in Jira/Confluence/Linear/Notion rather than pushing action items out; GitHub-issue creation is a community widget; no Azure DevOps
- − Free Starter caps a team at 3 FigJam files and excludes voting sessions, audio chat and no-account guest links
- − Built primarily for designers — the canvas paradigm is fiddly for structured retros, and large boards get sluggish
Simyl Flow — pros
- + Retro boards arrive pre-populated with six sprint metrics (velocity, cycle time, PRs merged, commits, bug rate, unplanned work) pulled from the tools the team already uses — the discussion starts from evidence rather than recall
- + Unusually broad delivery-data integration set for a tool that runs retros: Jira, Linear, Shortcut, ClickUp, Notion, GitHub/GitLab Issues, plus GitHub, GitLab and Bitbucket repos and their CI pipelines for DORA metrics
- + Official MCP server with 17 read-only tools, generally available and not tier-gated, so Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor or Windsurf can query sprint metrics, health scores and blocker summaries directly
- + Action items carry forward across sprints with completion-rate tracking, and the six-dimension health score answers whether last sprint's change actually landed
- + Flat per-team pricing ($29–49/team/mo) rather than per-seat, so a 24-person org on three teams pays $87/mo regardless of headcount inside each team
- + Deliberate privacy architecture — scores are team-level not individual, coaching notes are visible only to the developer and their manager, source code is never stored, and AI runs on Amazon Bedrock with no data retention
Simyl Flow — cons
- − Retro toolkit is thin on facilitator staples: no documented timer or timeboxed phases, no anonymous submission, no drag-and-drop grouping, no presentation mode, no recurring or scheduled retros, and only 5 built-in templates against 50+ at retro-native tools
- − Almost no engagement layer — no icebreakers, GIFs, reactions, music or kudos wall; the product is deliberately metrics-serious, which makes it a poor fit for teams whose retro problem is participation rather than measurement
- − The health score is computed from delivery signals, not from the team — there is no survey-based health check, mood tracking, sentiment analysis or ROTI, so how the team <em>feels</em> is never captured
- − Enterprise claims are self-attested: 'SOC 2 aligned, not certified' and 'ISO 27001 aligned, not certified', inheriting AWS's certifications rather than holding its own; SSO/SAML sits behind a quote-only tier, and there is no SCIM or audit log
- − Export is CSV only, and there is no public REST API or webhooks — the MCP server is read-only, so nothing can push data back in programmatically
- − Young vendor (Simyl AI, Inc., founded 2024) that self-describes as 'a small team of engineers', with no published HQ, named founders, third-party reviews or G2/Capterra presence — a real durability question for procurement
- − Free tier is genuinely small (1 team, 10 stakeholders, 2 retros/month, 1 integration, 90-day retention), and Azure DevOps is still 'coming soon' rather than shipped
Keep comparing
Other FigJam comparisons
Other Simyl Flow comparisons
See alternatives
Not sure which to pick? Read our guide on how to choose a retrospective tool.