Miro is the better whiteboard for a mixed team that includes sales, operations, marketing and clients, while FigJam is the better pick when designers and product people already live in Figma. Miro offers the wider template library, more integrations and stronger facilitation features for workshops. FigJam is simpler, faster to learn and often effectively free for teams already paying for Figma seats.
This Miro vs FigJam comparison covers pricing, free plan limits, collaboration features, integrations and the type of team each tool fits. Pricing here comes from vendor pages and third-party summaries that sometimes conflict, so verify current numbers before you buy.
How We Compared Miro and FigJam
We compared the two whiteboards from documented evidence: vendor pricing and feature pages, help documentation, and patterns across verified user reviews on G2 and Capterra. We did not run workshops in either product. We used one yardstick for both: what a team of ten pays, how much free use you get, how easily non-designers can join, how well each connects to the tools a mixed team already uses, and how much structure it gives a facilitator. Where sources disagree on a price, we flag it.
Pricing: Miro sells seats, FigJam rides along with Figma
Miro documents a free plan with a small number of editable boards, with older boards going read-only once you pass the cap, and paid plans starting around $8 per member per month on annual billing for Starter, with Business at roughly $20 per member per month. Enterprise is custom priced.
FigJam is not a standalone purchase in the usual sense. It is documented as included with Figma seats, and Figma's free plan includes a small number of FigJam files. Paid access is documented through Figma's Collab and full seat tiers, with third-party sources quoting a low entry price per Collab seat and a higher price for full seats, though the numbers conflict between sources. Check Figma's current pricing page, because seat types and prices have changed more than once.
Free plans and what they really allow
Both free plans are workable for a trial but limited in the way that matters for ongoing use. Miro's free tier caps how many boards stay editable. FigJam's free tier on Figma's Starter plan caps the number of FigJam files. For a team that runs a single recurring retrospective, either limit may be fine. For a team that starts a new board for every project, you will hit the cap within weeks.
Reviewers commonly say the Miro cap feels more restrictive because boards are the core unit of work, while FigJam's cap matters less if the team pays for Figma anyway. Because limits change, confirm them on each vendor's page rather than relying on any article, including this one.
Features for mixed teams
Miro documents a large template library, voting, timers, presentation mode, mind maps, user-story mapping, diagramming shapes and a broad marketplace of integrations including Jira, Slack, Google Workspace and Microsoft Teams. It is widely described as the more complete visual collaboration platform, with a steeper learning curve for first-time users.
FigJam documents sticky notes, stamps, emotes, cursor chat, simple diagramming, templates and tight links to Figma design files. Reviewers consistently describe it as friendlier and quicker to pick up, especially for people who just want to drop stickies on a board, but less deep when you need complex diagrams, large-scale planning or heavy facilitation controls.
| Factor | Miro | FigJam |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Per member, with a free tier and paid plans from about $8 per month (verify current) | Included with Figma seats, with a free tier (verify current) |
| Free plan limit | Documented cap on editable boards | Documented cap on FigJam files |
| Templates and diagramming | Very broad library and shape set | Smaller, simpler set |
| Integrations | Large marketplace, including Jira and Slack | Strongest with Figma, with a smaller set elsewhere |
| Learning curve | Steeper, with more options | Gentler for non-designers |
| Best fit | Cross-functional teams and workshop facilitators | Design and product teams on Figma |
Which team fits which tool
Pick Miro if your team spans several functions and you run planning sessions, customer journey mapping, or workshops with outside participants. Its depth and integration list are the reason most mixed teams settle there, and our Miro review covers its strengths and weaknesses in more detail.
Pick FigJam if your designers already pay for Figma and the whiteboard is mainly for brainstorming, retros and quick diagrams. Adding FigJam to an existing Figma subscription is often the lowest-friction option. You can see the product directly on Figma's FigJam page.
If whiteboarding is just one part of how your team plans work, it belongs inside a broader toolkit, and our best project management tools guide shows where visual boards fit alongside task trackers.
Guest access and client work
A mixed team usually includes people outside the paid seat count, such as contractors and clients. Both vendors document guest or viewer access, but the rules differ and change by plan, so check whether outside collaborators can edit without a paid seat. This is a common source of surprise bills with per-seat tools. A quick way to avoid it is to count how many people will actually edit boards in a typical month, price that number on both tools, and treat everyone else as viewers.
Exporting and leaving
Neither tool locks you in tightly. Both let you export boards as images or PDFs, and Miro documents additional export and backup options on higher tiers. Moving live, editable content between the two is the hard part, since templates and diagram objects do not convert cleanly. If you expect to switch later, keep important decisions in a document or task tracker, with the board as a working surface rather than the system of record.
Facilitation and large workshops
If your team runs workshops with more than a dozen people, the facilitation tools matter more than the sticky notes. Miro documents timers, voting, private mode, presentation tools and the ability to pull attendees to a section of the board, which helps a facilitator keep a large group together. FigJam documents lighter equivalents such as timers, voting and music, which work well for small retros but offer less control at scale. Reviewers also note that very large Miro boards can feel slow on older laptops, so check performance with your own devices during any trial.
A quick way to decide
Ask three questions. Does your team already pay for Figma? How many people outside design need to edit boards? Do you need integrations with Jira, Slack or Microsoft Teams? If the first answer is yes and the other two are modest, start with FigJam. If most editors sit outside design and you rely on connected tools, start with Miro and compare its free plan against the cost of a few paid seats. Run a real meeting on each free plan before you commit, since the experience for non-designers is the deciding factor.
The bottom line: Choose Miro for a mixed team that needs depth and integrations, and choose FigJam if your team already pays for Figma and wants a simple, low-friction board.
