TL;DR — which and when
Miro if your team runs 4+ workshops per month, needs frequent external stakeholder collaboration, lives partially or fully outside the Figma ecosystem, or values broad template libraries over design-tool integration.
FigJam if the workshop is primarily internal to designers already working in Figma, you want zero context-switching between design files and workshop boards, and your workshops are short and design-adjacent rather than business-strategy-adjacent.
Both platforms have improved meaningfully since 2023. The 2020-era "Miro for everything, FigJam for design-nearby" framing no longer holds — FigJam has grown into a real workshop platform, and Miro's Figma integration has closed most of the gap the other way. In 2026 the choice is genuine rather than defaulted.
Feature comparison
| Category | Miro | FigJam |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | 3 editable boards, unlimited viewers | 3 boards on free Figma, unlimited on paid Figma |
| Paid entry price | $8 / user / month (Team) | $5 / user / month (bundled in Figma Professional $15) |
| Template gallery | 1000+ templates, business-broad | 300+ templates, design-first |
| Sticky notes | Rich, tagging, voting native | Rich, voting native, quicker keyboard shortcuts |
| Timer + voting | Both native | Both native |
| Video / audio | Native video chat, screen share | Audio chat, screen share via Figma |
| Figma integration | Embed Figma frames, one-way sync | Native — same file, same account, same components |
| Third-party integrations | 150+ (Jira, Slack, Notion, Asana, Zoom, MS Teams) | Growing (Slack, Jira, Linear via widgets) |
| AI features | Miro AI: cluster, diagram, summarise, present | Jambot / Figma AI: cluster, diagram, present, convert to slides |
| External guest experience | Low friction, no account needed | Requires Figma account (free tier fine) |
| UK GDPR / data residency | EU data residency (Enterprise) | EU data residency (Organization+) |
Pricing at team scale
At an 8-person design team running weekly workshops, the cost picture in 2026:
- Miro Team plan: $8 × 8 users × 12 months = $768 / year. Add facilitator-only Enterprise features (SSO, EU data residency, audit logs) and this rises to ~$1,500/year.
- FigJam bundled with Figma Professional: Design team is likely already paying $15/user/month for Figma Design ($1,440/year for 8), which includes FigJam access. Incremental FigJam cost: £0.
The FigJam-bundled economics are the reason most Figma-native teams default to it without seriously evaluating Miro. The comparison is not FigJam vs Miro on price — it's Miro-plus-Figma vs Figma-with-FigJam-included. On that basis, FigJam wins on cost for teams already committed to Figma Design.
Where the cost calculus flips: teams that don't have full Figma coverage across all workshop participants. If your PMs, engineers, researchers, or external stakeholders don't have Figma seats but do need to join workshops, Miro's per-seat cost usually wins because every participant needs a login to actually contribute in FigJam.
By workshop type
The choice depends more on the workshop type than on the platform's raw features. A workshop-by-workshop view:
Miro wins
Discovery workshops with cross-functional external stakeholders. Journey mapping sessions with customer service or ops teams. Retrospectives with the full delivery team. Strategy workshops with executives. Design sprints with mixed-discipline participation.
FigJam wins
Design critique sessions with the design team. Component brainstorms that reference live Figma files. Design system planning where the outputs feed straight into design files. User flow sketching that graduates to Figma frames. Sprint planning for design teams already inside Figma daily.
Either works fine
Affinity mapping. Empathy maps. Kick-off workshops. Solo ideation sessions.
AI features in 2026
Both platforms have shipped meaningful AI capability since 2024. As of 2026 the practical differences:
Miro AI — Strongest on synthesis. Cluster-sticky-notes is genuinely useful on boards with 50+ notes: the clustering suggestions are usually within one refinement of what a senior researcher would produce manually. Diagram-from-prompt is fine for rough drafts. Summarise-board turns a workshop into a written narrative that can be shared with people who didn't attend.
Figma AI (including FigJam features) — Strongest on conversion. FigJam-to-Slides converts a board into a presentation deck in one action, which is the highest-leverage AI feature in the workshop space if your workshops end with a stakeholder readout. Diagram-from-prompt is comparable to Miro. Sticky-note clustering is present but less mature.
Both platforms improve fast enough that any specific comparison is out of date within a quarter. The right question isn't "which has the best AI features today?" but "which team ships AI features faster?" — and both are shipping fast enough that neither is at a durable disadvantage.
For the deeper view on AI's role in UX synthesis specifically, see AI-assisted UX research.
External stakeholders
The single biggest practical difference for consulting-style or client-service work: Miro guest boards work without an account, FigJam requires a Figma login. For a 90-minute workshop with 6 client stakeholders who've never used the platform, Miro loses 3 minutes of setup friction. FigJam loses 10–15 minutes as people sign up, verify emails, and get into the room.
This is why agency-side and consulting-side teams default to Miro even when they personally prefer FigJam. The client-experience friction is real and compounds across every workshop.
The two-tool pattern most mature teams end up on
By around 8 designers plus regular external work, most design teams settle on running both. The split:
The pattern I see most often in mid-size design teams: FigJam for anything internal to the design team where the workshop feeds into Figma files (component brainstorms, design critique, sprint planning, IA restructures). Miro for anything that leaves the design team — stakeholder discovery, cross-functional workshops, agency client sessions, external retros. The overlap in users is minimal, so the dual-tool overhead is minimal. What each team-of-users defaults to is what they use.
Cost impact of running both: the FigJam side is free (bundled with Figma Design). The Miro side runs $8/user/month for the designers and facilitators who need edit access — usually 2–4 people, not the whole team. Total marginal cost of the second tool: ~£300–£800/year for most mid-size teams. Cheaper than the productivity cost of forcing one tool onto the wrong workshop type.
Frequently asked questions
Should I use Miro or FigJam for UX workshops in 2026?
Miro for external stakeholder work or high workshop volume. FigJam for internal design team work already in Figma. Both work well; the decision is more about workshop type than platform quality.
Is FigJam included in Figma or a separate product?
Separate product but bundled with Figma Professional and Organization plans at no extra cost. Free-tier Figma users get limited FigJam.
Which is better for remote UX workshops with clients?
Miro. Non-designers find Miro's onboarding friction lower and its template gallery more business-oriented.
How do Miro and FigJam AI features compare in 2026?
Miro strongest on synthesis (clustering, summarisation). FigJam strongest on conversion (board-to-slides, board-to-design-file). Both improve rapidly.
Can I use both Miro and FigJam?
Yes. Common pattern: FigJam internal, Miro external. Overhead is minimal because the users don't overlap much.