As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates Conceptboard 2.5/5 and Miro 2.5/5 in Design. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 1 of the 6 judges picks Conceptboard and 5 pick Miro. Conceptboard scores higher on 2 of 6 criteria (European sovereignty and Files, formats & portability). Miro scores higher on 3 of 6 criteria (Collaboration, review & developer handoff, Design, prototyping & design systems and Brand assets & governance). Provenance — Conceptboard: EU-Made; Miro: Rest of world. Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made.
Conceptboard and Miro split this bench rather than resolve it. Miro leads four criteria: design and prototyping (mean 4.8 against Conceptboard's 3.0, six judges lean Miro), collaboration and handoff (6.2 against 4.0, six lean Miro), brand asset governance (4.8 against 3.3, five lean Miro, one tie) and AI and content rights (6.2 against 0.0, six lean Miro). Conceptboard leads sovereignty at 7.8 against 5.0, six judges leaning Conceptboard — its legal entity jurisdiction is DE with data residency EU only, against Miro's US jurisdiction, EU optional residency and US CLOUD Act reach subprocessor exposure — and its file ownership and portability mean of 5.2 sits above Miro's 4.7, two judges leaning Conceptboard and four tied. Pricing transparency is level at 6.5 for both, one judge leaning each way. Weighted totals favor Miro for the product designer, frontend engineer, brand marketer and skeptic; the data protection officer has Conceptboard ahead, 6 to 5.5.
Choose Conceptboard if
You need data residency fixed in the EU with no selectable alternative: Conceptboard's data residency attribute reads EU only; Miro's reads EU optional.
Your data protection officer makes the final call: that judge's weighted total stands at Conceptboard 6 to Miro 5.5.
You must run the tool fully air-gapped on your own infrastructure: Conceptboard's verdict describes a self-hosted Data Center Edition that can run fully air-gapped.
Your legal review asks for German governing law and certifications: Conceptboard's verdict cites German governing law, hosting stated in Germany on named regions, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 certifications, and a published DPA.
Ownership and export of your board content decides the purchase: the file ownership and portability means read 5.2 to 4.7 for Conceptboard, two judges leaning Conceptboard and none leaning Miro.
Choose Miro if
Your team prototypes and iterates inside the tool daily: design and prototyping means run 4.8 to 3.0 in Miro's favor, six judges lean Miro.
You need AI features with written terms on content rights: AI and content rights means 6.2 to 0.0, six judges lean Miro, and the captured pages for Conceptboard describe no AI features.
Collaboration and handoff across roles is the core of your workflow: means 6.2 to 4.0, six judges lean Miro.
Brand asset governance counts in your decision: five judges lean Miro there, 4.8 to 3.3, with one tie.
Your priorities track the product designer, frontend engineer, brand marketer or skeptic: those weighted totals run Miro's way — 5.5 to 4.5, 5.2 to 4.6, 5.1 to 4.5 and 5.7 to 5.2.
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The Frontend Engineer
Turns the designs into code and gets the ticket when they disagree. Wants an inspect mode without a paid seat, tokens exported in a documented format, components mapped to the code ones, and an API that reads the whole file rather than a screenshot of it.
Conceptboard
Miro
This judge's pick
Criterion by criterion
Design, prototyping & design systems
Conceptboard
This is an online whiteboard, not a screen design tool: the pages document a canvas with a pre-built template library, tasks and facilitation features like live moderation, timer and voting, plus marketing use cases such as mood boards and creative briefings. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles, tokens, or clickable prototypes, so there is nothing here that maps to a component system.
Miro
An infinite canvas with drag-and-drop shapes, text and thousands of templates, plus clickable prototypes that stakeholders can comment on directly, is well documented. What I don't find is the layer I build against: no documented reusable components with variants and properties, no colour, type or spacing tokens in a documented format, and no auto layout — the closest is a Brand Center that applies company fonts and colours across boards.
Collaboration, review & developer handoff
Conceptboard
Real-time and async co-editing, comments and annotations, and role- and permission-based access control are documented, with named integrations for Teams, Confluence, Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive and Webex. The developer half of handoff is undocumented: no inspect or developer view with measurements, no component-to-code mapping, and the only mention of an API is a clause in the terms stating that interfaces for programmatic access exist.
Miro
Real-time co-editing, @mentions pinned to the exact part of the design, and comment, react and vote on prototypes are documented, and the MCP story genuinely interests me: a coding agent like Claude Code reads the prototype over MCP and generates a React app from it, with REST APIs on every plan and a marketplace plus developer platform. But the handoff basics are thin on the captured pages — no documented inspect view with measurements and asset export, no guest reviewers without a paid seat, and no version history or branching before changes reach the main board.
Brand assets & governance
Conceptboard
A pre-built template library comes with Starter and team templates and custom branding with the Advanced plan, which gives teams a shared template set. We found no public information on a central brand kit with logos, colours and fonts, on locked templates for non-designers, or on rights, usage and expiry metadata for licensed assets.
Miro
Brand Center is a real central kit: company fonts, colours, styles and branded custom templates that non-designers start boards from, automatic restyling of boards and presentations in brand colours, and admin insights monitoring template usage. I found no public information on locking brand elements, approval workflows for new assets, or licence, rights and expiry metadata on individual assets, and the brand guidelines offering is a template for documenting them rather than a governing layer.
Files, formats & portability
Conceptboard
The terms address the end of the contract directly — users must secure their data before termination and the vendor is entitled to irretrievably delete it — and the on-premises Data Center Edition runs in your own infrastructure via Kubernetes with an OCI-compliant deployment bundle. But we found no public information on export formats, an open or documented file format, bulk export, or an API that reads full board structure, so as an engineer I cannot verify the work leaves in a usable form.
Miro
The terms are honest about the exit: customer content may be exported for 30 days after the term ends, proactive account deletion removes content permanently, and the customer retains all IP in their content. There is a copy-to-Figma path with fully editable elements and a marketplace app that converts board contents into tables for export, but I found no documented whole-file download to a local copy, no open or documented file format, and no bulk export of a team's boards.
AI features & rights to the work
Conceptboard
We found no public information on AI features, training on customer content, admin controls for AI, or rights to generated output on the pages we read — the homepage, pricing page, privacy policy and terms. The terms only address user content: a licence to use it for providing the service, with no ownership claim over it.
Miro
The AI terms are unusually explicit: customers own inputs and outputs, Enterprise plans require withdrawable consent before any training, self-serve plans get a documented means to object, and admins can block Miro AI per feature, block prompts containing source code, choose providers and models, or run AI on their own API key, with an audit trail of AI interactions. Indemnity for generated output is expressly excluded from covered claims and the training licence is perpetual and irrevocable, and beyond one page naming Microsoft as a provider I found no stated processing locations or labelling of generated content.
European sovereignty
Conceptboard
The contracting entity is Conceptboard Cloud Service GmbH in Halle (Saale), hosting is stated for Germany on named AWS infrastructure with IONOS and StackIT Germany as paid options, and the privacy policy publishes subprocessors with locations and purposes — AWS EMEA in Luxembourg for hosting, Google Ireland for sign-on, Zendesk in the USA for help-centre hosting, with a deactivatable web-conferencing module. Add a published DPA, ISO 27001/27017/27018, standard contractual clauses for third-country transfers, and a self-hosted air-gapped edition available via the German Administrative Cloud; the US help-centre subprocessor and unstated ownership keep it below the top level.
Miro
EU data residency is stated as included on every plan including Free, an Amsterdam-based EU representative is named, a DPA is part of the agreement, and cross-border transfers rely on Standard Contractual Clauses. The contracting entity is RealtimeBoard Inc. under California law, and apart from one named AI provider and a referenced third-party provider list I found no published subprocessor locations or AI processing locations.
Pricing transparency
Conceptboard
Four plans are priced publicly — a free tier with 3 active boards and 100 objects per board, Starter at 5€ / user / month with monthly and yearly billing, Advanced From 10€ / user / month on a 12-month contract for 10+ users, Corporate & Government From 14€ / user / month — with storage and upload limits per plan, VAT treatment stated, Single Sign-On flagged as an additional fee, and renewal, cancellation and price-adjustment rules spelled out in the terms. What I cannot compute from public pages is the billing for viewers and guests or how and when added seats are charged, and the top two plans carry only from-prices.
Miro
Per-member prices are public for Free (€0), Starter at €8/month per member billed yearly and Business at €20/month per member billed yearly, with a full comparison table naming where SSO, audit logs, AI credits per member and MCP call limits land, plus public renewal terms with a 90-day non-renewal notice. Enterprise is custom pricing from 30 members, and the pages I read give no statement on how viewers or guests are billed, how added seats are trued up, or VAT treatment.
Sovereignty, side by side
Dimension
Conceptboard
Miro
Legal entity
Not determined
Not determined
Ownership
Not determined
Not determined
Data residency
Not determined
Not determined
Subprocessors
Not determined
Not determined
Facts, side by side
Only facts both products carry under the same definition — anything else would not be a fair row.
As of 28 Oct 2026, the panel rates both 2.5/5. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 1 of the 6 judges picks Conceptboard and 5 pick Miro. Which one fits depends on the criteria that matter to you; the table on this page shows both side by side, and each judge’s reading has its own page. Both were scored by the same AI bench under the same rubric, from public evidence only, as the methodology describes.
Is Conceptboard or Miro European?
Conceptboard is European (EU-Made). Miro is not European by provenance (Rest of world). Provenance is read from each company’s own legal pages: who builds it and who owns it.
Do Conceptboard and Miro have a free plan?
As of 28 Oct 2026, Miro’s own pages state a free plan; Conceptboard’s pages as captured do not. Each product page links the pricing page it was read from.