Miro vs FigJam: Which Whiteboard Fits Your Team in 2026?

Updated August 2026

If you're a design lead, product lead, ops lead or founder putting a whiteboard tool in front of a team, Miro and FigJam are the two names that keep showing up on the same shortlist. But they are not priced on the same axis at all, and that fact should shape how you even run the evaluation. Miro sells you a whiteboard directly: every person gets a seat, priced per member, on a plan built around the whiteboard itself. FigJam does not have its own standalone plan. Figma sells it as a Collab seat bundled inside a Figma plan, priced at $3 to $5 a month depending on which Figma tier you're on.

That structural difference means the real question isn't "which whiteboard is cheaper per seat." It's "does your company already own Figma?" If it does, FigJam is close to the cheapest whiteboard you can add to the stack. If it doesn't, you're not buying a whiteboard, you're buying into Figma's entire seat model to get one. This guide walks through what each tool is built for, what they actually cost at real team sizes, and where the honest tradeoffs sit. If you're weighing more than these two names, our roundup of the best online whiteboard software in 2026 covers the wider field.

TL;DR

Key Facts

• Miro reported passing 100 million users worldwide and 250,000 companies at its Canvas 25 event on October 14, 2025, according to Miro's own newsroom.
• Figma's Q2 2026 revenue grew 48% year over year to $370.1 million, with 15,964 paid customers carrying more than $10,000 in annual recurring revenue, up 34% year over year, per Figma's official Q2 2026 financial results.
• Google retired Jamboard on December 31, 2024, after taking it view-only on October 1, 2024, and explicitly pointed customers to FigJam, Lucidspark and Miro as replacements, according to Google Workspace's own updates blog.
• The collaborative whiteboard software market was valued at USD 3.81 billion in 2026 and is forecast to reach USD 9.59 billion by 2031, a CAGR of 20.28%, per Mordor Intelligence.
• Both tools carry the same 4.6 out of 5 average rating on G2, though the sample sizes are wildly different: Miro has 13,189 reviews to FigJam's 462, per G2's Miro reviews page and G2's FigJam reviews page.

What Each One Is Actually Built For

Miro exists as its own product, with its own onboarding, its own admin console and its own reason for a company to sign a contract. It was built for the specific job of being a shared visual workspace: workshops, roadmapping, retros, diagramming, sticky-note brainstorms, all in one canvas that anyone in the company can be invited into without needing any other piece of software.

FigJam exists inside Figma. It was built as the whiteboard companion to a design tool, and it still carries that DNA. It's the natural place for a product team to sketch a flow next to the actual screens being designed, hand a rough wireframe straight into a Figma Design file, or run a workshop where the outputs need to land inside the same file browser as the product's UI. If your team already lives in Figma for product or brand work, FigJam removes the "switch tools to whiteboard" step entirely.

The practical split: if your company doesn't touch Figma at all today, and whiteboarding is the whole ask, Miro is the more natural standalone purchase. If your design or product org already runs on Figma, adding FigJam is closer to flipping on a feature than buying a new tool. For teams evaluating the Figma side of that equation more broadly, our guide to Figma alternatives covers what else competes for that same design-tool budget.

Pricing at 10, 25 and 100 Seats

This is the section worth bookmarking, because the two vendors don't price the same thing. Miro prices a whiteboard. Figma prices a design platform, and FigJam rides along as one seat type inside it. Every number below is pulled straight from each vendor's own pricing page as published on August 22, 2026.

Miro's published tiers, per Miro's own pricing page:

FigJam's published tiers, sold as a Collab seat inside Figma, per Figma's own pricing page:

Notice that Figma's page lists one flat rate per seat type and plan rather than splitting monthly versus annual billing the way Miro does. Treat $3, $5, $16, $55 and $90 as Figma's stated per-seat monthly rates. The free-tier file cap comes straight from Figma's own help center: 3 Figma Design files capped at 3 pages each, and 3 FigJam files capped at a single page each, with unlimited private drafts on top.

What that means at real seat counts, Miro side. Annual cost, both billing bases:

A 100-seat team sits right at Miro's Enterprise threshold of 30-plus members, so in practice a company that size is more likely to be routed into a custom Enterprise quote than to pay list Business pricing. Treat the 100-seat Business row as a reference ceiling, not a guaranteed number.

What that means at real seat counts, FigJam side. This assumes your company is already paying for a Figma plan and is only adding Collab seats for people who need FigJam and nothing else in Figma:

At every seat count, the Collab-seat-only math is dramatically cheaper than Miro. That's the number every "FigJam is basically free" claim is built on, and it's accurate, with one enormous condition attached: it only holds if you're already on a paid Figma plan for other reasons.

The condition that changes everything: do you already own Figma? Here's the honest version of that math for a 25-person team with zero existing Figma footprint:

Even the "starting from zero" FigJam number comes in under Miro Starter for this example, because Collab seats are genuinely cheap. But notice what changed: the "starting from zero" scenario isn't a pure whiteboard purchase anymore. It's standing up a Figma organization, appointing an admin, and living inside Figma's file and folder structure just to get a whiteboard. Figma doesn't publish a hard minimum seat requirement to activate a paid plan, so treat the one-Full-seat assumption above as a planning estimate, not a platform rule, and confirm the exact minimum with Figma before budgeting.

The upshot: for a team that already has Figma seats for design work, adding FigJam is nearly a rounding error. For a team with no Figma presence at all, Miro's pricing model, one product, one plan, one bill, is the simpler and more predictable purchase, even though the raw per-seat number is higher.

Canvas and Whiteboarding Features Compared

Both tools give you an infinite canvas, sticky notes, shapes, freehand drawing, real-time cursors and comments. Where they diverge is in canvas-native depth versus design-file proximity.

The practical difference shows up when a workshop output needs to become something else. In Miro, a sticky-note cluster can turn into a Table or a Doc without leaving the product. In FigJam, the natural next step is dragging elements straight into a Figma Design file, because that's the tool sitting one tab over. Neither is objectively deeper, they're just optimized for different next steps.

Diagramming, Templates and Frameworks

Miro ships with a large, general-purpose template library spanning strategy, product, engineering, HR and marketing use cases, plus a marketplace of community and partner templates. FigJam's template library leans toward product and design workflows, since it's built for teams already thinking in Figma's design-file mental model.

If your team runs frequent affinity-mapping exercises to cluster raw research or feedback into themes, our guide to running an affinity diagram covers the method regardless of which tool you run it in. And if flowcharting or precise diagramming is the main job, neither tool was built to be a dedicated diagram engine the way Lucidchart alternatives are, so it's worth checking that category too before committing.

Facilitation and Meeting Features

This is where "whiteboard" and "meeting tool" start to blur, and it's a real differentiator once a team runs regular live sessions on either platform.

Teams that run structured workshops, especially recurring ones like sprint retrospectives, tend to notice this gap first. If retros are a big part of why you're evaluating either tool, our guide to running a sprint retrospective is worth reading before you lock in a template, since the facilitation feature set matters as much as the canvas itself for that use case.

Integrations and Where Each One Sits in a Stack

Miro sits outside any single vendor's ecosystem by design, so its integration marketplace spans project management, communication, and productivity tools broadly. FigJam's deepest integration is the one that matters most to its buyers: it's already inside Figma.

If your stack question is really "which design tool do we standardize on, and does its whiteboard come along for free," that's a broader decision than this article covers alone. Our Figma alternatives roundup is the place to weigh that question on its own terms.

Performance and Board Scale

Large boards are where whiteboard tools most often show their seams, and the two products handle scale differently because they were architected for different primary jobs.

Neither vendor publishes a hard object-count ceiling, so board performance in practice depends more on how disciplined a team is about archiving finished work than on a fixed technical limit either way.

AI Features in 2026

Both platforms now bundle AI into every paid seat, with a credit-based system rather than a flat "AI on or off" toggle.

The practical difference: Miro's AI credits are metered specifically around whiteboard tasks like clustering and diagram generation. FigJam's AI credits come from the same shared pool a Figma seat uses for design and prototyping work, so a Collab seat's 500 monthly credits are really a slice of a bigger, shared Figma AI allowance rather than a whiteboard-specific budget.

Admin, Security and Governance

Governance needs usually surface later in a rollout, once IT or security gets involved, and this is one area where the two products' different origins show up clearly.

Because FigJam's governance model is inherited from Figma as a whole, a security review of FigJam is really a security review of Figma. That can be an advantage if your security team has already vetted Figma and doesn't want to run a second full review for a standalone whiteboard vendor. It can be a disadvantage if the security posture you actually want is scoped narrowly to whiteboarding rather than the entire design platform.

Implementation and Change Management

Rolling either tool out well is less about the software and more about who needs to change habits.

The implementation story mirrors the pricing story almost exactly: Miro asks a team to adopt something new, FigJam asks a team to use more of something they already have. Neither is inherently easier, it depends entirely on which starting point describes your team today.

When Miro Is the Right Call

• Your company has no meaningful Figma footprint, and whiteboarding is the whole ask. Standing up a Figma org just to get a $3 Collab seat rarely makes sense if nobody on the team touches Figma otherwise.
• You run frequent, structured facilitation sessions, especially ones needing breakout boards, built-in video huddles, or a deep facilitator toolkit that goes beyond timers and voting.
• Non-design teams across the company need access, from sales kickoffs to HR onboarding boards to executive strategy sessions, and you want one tool that isn't tied to any single department's software.
• You want AI credits scoped specifically to whiteboard tasks, rather than drawn from a shared pool that also covers design and prototyping work elsewhere in the stack.

When FigJam Is the Right Call

• Your design or product org already pays for Figma seats. Adding FigJam is close to free at $3 to $5 per Collab seat, and it avoids standing up a second vendor relationship entirely.
• Whiteboard output needs to become a Figma Design file, or vice versa, without an export-import step breaking the workflow.
• Your team already lives in Figma's interface, so there's effectively zero training curve to pick up FigJam alongside it.
• You'd rather manage one vendor's security review, SSO configuration, and admin console than run governance separately for a whiteboard and a design tool.

If FigJam is close but not quite the fit, whether on price, feature depth, or the fact that your team doesn't use Figma for design work, our roundup of FigJam alternatives covers the standalone whiteboard options built for that exact gap. And if Miro feels closer but you want to see how it stacks up against another major standalone player, Miro vs Mural is the natural next comparison, alongside our Mural alternatives and Lucidspark alternatives roundups if enterprise diagramming depth is the deciding factor.

Decision Framework

Use this framework to choose the broader canvas when structure, mapping, and platform depth matter, or the lighter board when speed matters more.

The short version. Neither tool is cheaper in some absolute sense, they're priced on different axes entirely. Miro's price is the whole story: pay per member, get a whiteboard, done. FigJam's price is only part of the story: the $3 to $5 Collab seat is real, but it's a line item inside a Figma bill that may or may not already exist at your company. Answer the "do we already own Figma" question first, and the rest of this decision gets much easier.

What to Do Next

Before comparing another feature, pull your company's current Figma seat count, if any. If it's zero, price out Miro Starter or Business directly at your actual headcount using the tables above. If it's nonzero, ask your Figma admin what it would cost to add Collab seats for the people who need FigJam and nothing else, since that number is almost always smaller than either team expects going in.