Online Whiteboard · head-to-head
Conceptboard vs Miro
As of 1 Nov 2026, the panel rates Conceptboard 3/5 and Miro 3.5/5 in Online Whiteboard. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 0 of the 6 judges pick Conceptboard and 6 pick Miro. Conceptboard scores higher on 2 of 7 criteria (European sovereignty and Pricing transparency). Miro scores higher on 5 of 7 criteria (Sharing, permissions & administration, Integrations, import & export, Canvas, templates & content, plus 2 more). Provenance — Conceptboard: EU-Made; Miro: Rest of world. Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made.
The short answer
The lean splits by criterion. Miro is ahead on canvas and content (6.3 vs 4.5), facilitation (7.2 vs 5.8), integrations and export (6.8 vs 4.3) and access and administration (7.5 vs 4.8), with six judges leaning Miro and none leaning Conceptboard on each. Conceptboard is ahead on sovereignty (8.0 vs 6.0, six lean Conceptboard) and pricing transparency (6.2 vs 5.5, four lean Conceptboard, two tie). Security and deployment is the open split: three judges lean Miro, three tie. The weighted totals are higher for Miro for the workshop facilitator (6.6 vs 5.3), product team lead (6.8 vs 5.8), M365 admin (7.3 vs 5.6), works-council member (6.6 vs 6.4), public-sector judge (6.4 vs 6.0) and skeptic (6.4 vs 5.8). The verdicts themselves split, too — Miro on sovereignty (5 to 7), Conceptboard on pricing transparency (5 to 7) — and the Conceptboard verdict reports different figures across captured pages for third-country transfers.
Choose Conceptboard if
- Sovereignty decides the purchase: six judges lean Conceptboard on sovereignty (8.0 vs 6.0), and its verdict rests the score on a German contracting entity, hosting in the Frankfurt region on named IONOS and AWS infrastructure, a published data processing agreement, and ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018.
- You need an air-gapped deployment: the Conceptboard verdict documents a self-hosted Data Center Edition that runs fully air-gapped.
- Your procurement wants documented hosting choices in Germany: the verdict names hosting on IONOS and AWS in the Frankfurt region, with IONOS or STACKIT as paid options.
- You must state your costs up front: four judges lean Conceptboard on pricing transparency, where its verdict records published tiers and concrete free-plan limits — alongside 'additional fee' add-ons and unexplained guest counting.
Choose Miro if
- Guests must join without accounts: six judges lean Miro on facilitation (7.2 vs 5.8), and its verdict documents joining by QR code or link with no account.
- Your team needs SAML single sign-on and SCIM provisioning: the verdict has SAML starting on the Business plan, with SCIM provisioning and Enterprise audit-to-SIEM, and six judges lean Miro on access and administration (7.5 vs 4.8).
- Integration breadth decides the buy: six judges lean Miro on integrations and export (6.8 vs 4.3), though the captured pages give different figures for its integration count (over 160 on one, 250+ on others).
- You need canvas basics on day one: six judges lean Miro on canvas and content (6.3 vs 4.5), and we found no public information on sticky notes, freehand drawing or connectors in the captured Conceptboard pages.
- An administrator must be able to block AI outright: the Miro verdict documents this control, and on security and deployment three judges lean Miro with three ties (7.2 vs 6.5).
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The bench's picks
Same scores, different priorities: each judge's weighting applied to both products. The split is the finding.
- The Workshop Facilitator Conceptboard Miro picks Miro
- The Product Team Lead Conceptboard Miro picks Miro
- The Microsoft 365 Admin Conceptboard Miro picks Miro
- The Works Council Member Conceptboard Miro picks Miro
- The Public-Sector Project Lead Conceptboard Miro picks Miro
- The Skeptic Conceptboard Miro picks Miro
Criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Conceptboard | Miro |
|---|---|---|
| Canvas, templates & content | 2.5 of 5 | 3 of 5 |
| Workshop facilitation & participation | 3 of 5 | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations, import & export | 2 of 5 | 3.5 of 5 |
| Sharing, permissions & administration | 2.5 of 5 | 4 of 5 |
| Security, AI controls & deployment | 3.5 of 5 | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 4 of 5 | 3 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 3 of 5 | 3 of 5 |
| Criterion | Conceptboard | Miro | The bench leans |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canvas, templates & content | Miro, 6 of 6 judges | ||
| Workshop facilitation & participation | Miro, 6 of 6 judges | ||
| Integrations, import & export | Miro, 6 of 6 judges | ||
| Sharing, permissions & administration | Miro, 6 of 6 judges | ||
| Security, AI controls & deployment | Miro, 3 of 6 judges | ||
| European sovereignty | Conceptboard, 6 of 6 judges | ||
| Pricing transparency | Conceptboard, 4 of 6 judges |
Stars show the bench average per criterion; the lean counts which product each judge scored higher. Open a judge's tab for their reasoning on both sides.
Sovereignty, side by side
| Dimension | Conceptboard | Miro |
|---|---|---|
| Legal entity | Not determined | Not determined |
| Hosting location | Not determined | Not determined |
| Hosting options | Not determined | Not determined |
| Open source | Not determined | Not determined |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | Not determined |
| Transfer impact assessment | 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.
| Compliance · Certifications | ISO 27001 · ISO 27017 · ISO 270181 | compliant · compliant · certified · ready2 |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance · DPA | yes3 | yes4 |
| Compliance · GDPR | yes5 | yes6 |
| Compliance · GDPR compliant | yes3 | yes · GDPR7 |
| Compliance · ISO 27001 | ISO 27001 · yes8 | certified9 |
| Legal · Contracting entity | IT.NRW · Govdigital10 | RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro4 |
| Legal · Entity name | Conceptboard Cloud Service GmbH11 | RealtimeBoard, Inc. dba Miro12 |
| Legal · Governing law | German law governs, excluding UN CISG and international private law13 | California law; venue San Francisco, California4 |
| Pricing · Free tier | personal use · yes13 | yes9 |
| Pricing · Starter price | Starter · 51 | Starter · EUR · yearly · 814 |
| Product · Access control | Need-to-know principle; access rights regularly checked and withdrawn15 | multi-factor authentication · role-based access control · single sign-on · just-in-time privileged access16 |
| Product · Accessibility | yes · yes10 | yes17 |
| Product · SSO | SAML 2.0 · OAuth 2.03 | yes · Okta · Azure AD · Google SSO18 |
| Product · Templates | templates for workshops, meetings, and brainstorming sessions19 | 7000+9 |
| Product · Vulnerability management | anti-virus / anti-malware · vulnerability scanning · threat notification advisories · patch management15 | yes · yes18 |
| Support · Help center | yes20 | yes21 |
| Support · Trust center | yes20 | yes7 |
Questions about Conceptboard and Miro
Which is better, Conceptboard or Miro?
As of 1 Nov 2026, the panel rates Miro higher: 3.5/5 against 3/5. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 0 of the 6 judges pick Conceptboard and 6 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.
Where do Conceptboard and Miro store customer data?
Per the vendors’ own pages as captured — Conceptboard: Default not stated; pages mention Germany. Miro: Default not stated; pages mention the EU, the US, Australia and Japan.
Do Conceptboard and Miro have a free plan?
As of 1 Nov 2026, both vendors’ own pages state a free plan. Each product page links the pricing page it was read from.