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 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 Product Team Lead
Leads three product teams at a logistics software company in Hamburg, with developers in Poland and Portugal. The board is where story maps, quarterly planning, architecture sketches and retrospectives happen, and the outcome has to land in Jira without anyone retyping it. Wants diagrams and sticky notes on one board, a two-way sync with the tickets, an API for the team's own automation, and an export that still makes sense when the company switches tools.
Conceptboard
Miro
This judge's pick
Criterion by criterion
Canvas, templates & content
Conceptboard
Templates for workshops and retrospectives with a pre-built library and team templates, kanban, backlogs, sprint planning, timelines and Gantt-style views, presentation sections, and files embedded from Google Drive and OneDrive — the captured pages describe a working planning board, with concrete free limits of three active boards and one hundred objects. What my teams would still need to verify: we found no public information on sticky notes, drawing tools, shapes and connectors, mind maps, tables, search across boards, or any AI that clusters or summarises.
Miro
The infinite canvas carries sticky notes, frames, video and audio walkthroughs, and technical diagramming with named notations — flowcharts, ERDs, UML class and sequence diagrams — all described as living on a single board, backed by 7,000+ templates. That covers our story maps, planning and architecture sketches. The captured pages don't describe tables and kanban on the board, search across boards, centrally managed organisation templates, or documented limits for large boards, so I stop short of the top.
Workshop facilitation & participation
Conceptboard
Live moderation, a timer and voting are named, guests get temporary external access from the Starter tier up, presentations run section by section with one click, and the board works inside Microsoft Teams and Webex calls. An accessibility statement audited by Materna in July 2025 against EN 301 549 and BITV 2.0 is published, though it reports partial compliance with no templates marked accessible. We found no public information on anonymous or private note modes, breakout areas, session agendas, stated participant limits, or object locking.
Miro
Guests join by QR code or link with no account, and there is a timer, dot voting, polls, a private anonymous mode, breakout frames, Bring Everyone to Me and a frames-based presentation mode — everything my retros and quarterly plannings need, with participant limits stated for the engagement activities (50 on Business and Enterprise). Accessibility is addressed as a claim to meet enterprise standards. We found no public information on a published accessibility conformance report, a facilitator agenda panel, or export of voting results.
Integrations, import & export
Conceptboard
Jira tickets, statuses and documentation are integrated directly on the board, boards embed into Confluence via iFrame, and Microsoft Teams, Webex, Google Drive, Dropbox and OneDrive are named — the connections my teams in Poland and Portugal would actually use. What the pages do not establish: the Jira link is described as reflecting content on the board rather than a two-way sync keeping cards and issues aligned, an API is mentioned in passing but not documented, full data export is promised with no formats named, and we found no public information on webhooks, imports from other whiteboards, or an app marketplace.
Miro
A documented REST API, a JavaScript Web SDK, Live Embed and an MCP server give my developers what they need for automation, and the Atlassian integration brings Jira tasks, dependency visualisation and Confluence embeds onto the board alongside 250+ tools and a marketplace; Visio and Lucidchart import is documented for Starter upward. The captured pages don't state that the Jira link is a two-way sync keeping cards and issues aligned, don't mention webhooks, and name no export formats — only that export is possible during the subscription term and 30 days after it.
Sharing, permissions & administration
Conceptboard
Individual access rights per file, board and project with role-based permissions are stated, SAML 2.0 single sign-on is offered for an additional fee, guest contributors get temporary external access, and audit logs plus advanced admin controls arrive at the Corporate tier. We found no public information on link sharing with expiry or password, SCIM provisioning, domain capture, centrally set sharing policies, retention rules, or what happens to boards when a person leaves.
Miro
SCIM and just-in-time provisioning, SAML single sign-on from Business upward, admin roles split into company, user and content scopes, audit logs feeding a SIEM, sensitivity classification labels and automated retention are all documented — an admin story I could hand to our IT. Guardrails that block public sharing of highly classified boards also exist. We found no public information on domain capture, link sharing with expiry and password, guest-domain rules, or transfer of boards when a person leaves.
Security, AI controls & deployment
Conceptboard
Encryption in transit (TLS 1.2 with AES-256 GCM and forward secrecy) and at rest, two-factor authentication, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 recertified in March 2025, and a bug bounty with automated and manual penetration tests are all documented. Deployment is unusually strong: dedicated servers in a German data centre and a self-hosted Data Center Edition that even runs air-gapped, physically separated from the internet. No AI features are described anywhere, so their controls cannot be assessed, and we found no public information on customer-managed keys, data loss prevention, or stated deletion periods for boards and accounts.
Miro
TLS 1.3 in transit and 256-bit AES at rest, customer-managed keys hosted in the customer's own AWS account, admin control over AI with model-provider choice, prompt blocking and named AI providers with their locations, plus annual penetration tests and deletion or return on termination give a strong picture. We found no public information on a dedicated, private-cloud or on-premises edition, on what managers can see of individual activity, or on a statement for works-council agreements — the last one matters for a rollout here in Germany.
European sovereignty
Conceptboard
The contracting entity is a German GmbH in Halle (Saale) with a commercial register entry, hosting runs in Germany on named infrastructure — IONOS, AWS Frankfurt, or STACKIT — a data processing agreement is published, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 are stated with recertification in 2025, and a subprocessor list with purposes is published, with email provider Brevo hosted at OVH in France and Germany and Google Cloud in Belgium. The documented Data Center Edition runs entirely on the customer's own servers, optionally with no internet connection. The privacy policy names some website-side providers based in third countries under standard contractual clauses, and we found no public information on the company's ownership structure.
Miro
EU data residency is included on every plan with boards in AWS EU data centers, a data processing agreement is published under Dutch law, and subprocessors are listed with locations alongside ISO 27001, SOC 2 and GDPR badges. But the contracting entity is RealtimeBoard Inc. of San Francisco, and the named subprocessors for AI (Anthropic), captions (ElevenLabs), email (Braze) and support (Gainsight) sit in the United States, with transfers to the US acknowledged in the privacy policy. A Berlin affiliate (Miro DACH GmbH) and an Amsterdam EU representative exist alongside the US entity, which is why I land above the middle rather than at it.
Pricing transparency
Conceptboard
The pricing page publishes Starter at 5€ / user / month, Advanced from 10€ / user / month and Corporate & Government from 14€ / user / month, with minimum users per tier, twelve- and twenty-four-month terms, VAT treatment, monthly or yearly billing, and concrete free-plan limits of three active boards, one hundred objects and 250 MB storage, while the terms spell out cancellation, auto-renewal and annual inflation adjustment. What I cannot yet compute: the single sign-on and Germany-hosting options are flagged only as an additional fee without amounts, guest counting is not explained, and special plans including on-premises are on request.
Miro
Prices are public: Free at €0, Starter at €8/month per member billed yearly, Business at €20/month per member billed yearly, Enterprise custom pricing from 30 members, with a yearly saving of 20%, a 14-day Business trial, 50 AI credits/member/month on Business and per-tier MCP call limits stated. Which features are gated to which plan is visible, including add-ons my security team would want — key management, automated classification, eDiscovery, prompt blocking — but those add-ons carry no prices. We found no public information on free-plan board limits, VAT treatment, or the cost of the Enterprise tier and residency migrations.
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.
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.