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 Works Council Member
Sits on the works council of an insurance company and leads its IT committee, which has to agree before any tool that could show who did what goes live (§87(1) no. 6 BetrVG). Reads the admin documentation before the feature page: whether contributions and time on board are tracked per person, what a manager can see, how long logs are kept, what the AI does with retrospective notes, and where the boards are stored and by whom.
Conceptboard
Miro
This judge's pick
Criterion by criterion
Canvas, templates & content
Conceptboard
A shared visual space with commenting and collaborative editing is documented, with a template library for workshops and meetings that can be adopted and adapted to the organisation, kanban boards, backlog and sprint planning, timelines and Gantt-style views, tasks and annotations, and file uploads with stated limits (10–100 MB per upload by tier, 100 objects per board on the free plan). We found no public information on the canvas primitives (sticky notes, shapes, connectors, freehand drawing, pen input), on search across boards, or on AI clustering and summarising of notes, so I cannot place it in the upper bands.
Miro
An infinite canvas with sticky notes, 7,000+ templates, frames with a presentation mode, and technical diagramming — flowcharts, ERDs, UML class and sequence diagrams — edited live by several people with comments, tagging and Talktrack video walkthroughs on the same board is well documented. We found no public information on search across boards, stated limits for large boards, own templates for the organisation, or AI that clusters or summarises notes with its data use stated, which keeps this below the top levels.
Workshop facilitation & participation
Conceptboard
Live moderation, a timer, voting, sections that carry a presentation from section to section, and temporary guest access for externals are documented, the board runs inside Microsoft Teams and Webex meetings, and there is an accessibility statement backed by an external audit against EN 301 549 and BITV 2.0 that reports partial compliance. We found no public information on an anonymous or private mode for notes, on participant limits per session, on locking objects or breakout areas — precisely the items I would need documented before a retrospective format goes live.
Miro
People join by QR code or link with no account and no installs, and the pages document a timer, dot voting and polls, a private anonymous mode for notes, breakout frames, 'Bring Everyone to Me', presentation mode, per-member permissions with section locking, and a stated cap of 50 participants for Engage activities. The accessibility claim reads 'built to meet enterprise accessibility standards' with no conformance report behind it, and export of voting results is not described.
Integrations, import & export
Conceptboard
Named integrations cover Microsoft Teams, Webex, Confluence via iFrame embedding, Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive and a Jira integration that reflects tickets and status on the board, and the terms mention interfaces for programmatic access such as APIs; full export and deletion of data is offered automatically or on request. We found no public information on export formats (PDF, image, CSV of notes), a two-way Jira sync, webhooks, or imports from other whiteboards, so a structured exit cannot be planned from the captured pages alone.
Miro
A REST API, Web SDK, MCP server, Live Embed via iFrame, oEmbed, a marketplace and 250+ integrations including Jira, Confluence, Teams and Slack are documented, with import from Visio and Lucidchart from the Starter plan. Export is evidenced only contractually — customers may export their content 'using the export features described in the Documentation' — with no formats, no webhooks and no two-way Jira sync described, so how content leaves the platform stays open.
Sharing, permissions & administration
Conceptboard
Individual access rights per file, board and project with role-based permissions, SAML 2.0 / OAuth 2.0 single sign-on, two-factor authentication, advanced admin controls and audit logs in the Corporate tier are documented, and the privacy policy states server log retention of generally 28 days with audit logs up to 180 days — a figure my committee would anchor in the agreement. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, centrally enforced sharing policies, domain capture, transfer of boards when a person leaves, or export of audit logs to a SIEM.
Miro
SCIM and just-in-time provisioning, SAML SSO, admin roles split into Company, User and Content Admins, audit logs that 'track every action across your organization — from board creation to sharing permission changes' with SIEM export, automated classification and retention, an eDiscovery API and guardrails that block public sharing of high-sensitivity boards are all documented. What is missing for our sign-off is a stated retention period for those audit logs and any word on domain capture of existing accounts.
Security, AI controls & deployment
Conceptboard
Encryption is stated with technical detail (TLS 1.2 with AES-256 GCM, elliptic curve cryptography and forward secrecy in transit, AES-256 at rest), backups, network segmentation, pseudonymised user IDs and logged admin access are documented, and the deployment ladder runs from a managed German cloud to a dedicated single-tenant server to an on-premises Data Center Edition that even operates fully air-gapped with customer-controlled update timing. We found no public information on AI features and whether an administrator can switch them off, on what managers can see of individual contributions and time on board, or on a statement or template for works council agreements — for a Betriebsvereinbarung that documentation gap is what holds my score below the top band.
Miro
Encryption in transit and at rest, customer-hosted keys in the customer's own AWS account, admin control to block Miro AI or MCP entirely, prompt blocking, provider choice, AI audit trails, data-loss controls and annual penetration tests are documented, and the AI subprocessors are named with their locations. But we found no public information on a dedicated-tenant or on-premises option, deletion follows unstated 'data deletion timelines and policies', and nothing describes what a manager can see of an individual's contributions or offers a works council statement.
European sovereignty
Conceptboard
The contracting entity is Conceptboard Cloud Service GmbH in Halle (Saale), German law governs, boards are hosted in Germany on named infrastructure (IONOS and AWS in the Frankfurt region, optionally IONOS CLOUD or STACKIT), ISO 27001/27017/27018 certifications are stated, a data processing agreement is published, and the privacy policy lists the subprocessors with EU locations given for some (email via OVH in France and Germany and Google Cloud in Belgium) and standard contractual clauses as the safeguard for providers in third countries. An on-premises edition that keeps every board on the customer's own servers is documented as well; we found no public information on locations for several other named subprocessors such as the help-centre and applicant-management providers.
Miro
The contracting party and data importer is RealtimeBoard Inc. of San Francisco under California law — the EU representative in Amsterdam and the German imprint company Miro DACH GmbH do not change that — while boards can live in AWS EU regions on every plan, though no page states which region hosts new accounts by default. The DPA with Dutch-law SCCs is published and twelve subprocessors are listed, but every named one — AWS, Anthropic, Braze, ElevenLabs, Gainsight — is a US company, and the privacy policy warns that data may be transferred to and processed in the United States.
Pricing transparency
Conceptboard
All three paid tiers are public with per-user prices ("5€ / user / month Starter", "From 10€ / user / month Advanced", "From 14€ / user / month Corporate & Government"), free-plan limits are stated (3 active boards, 100 objects per board, 250 MB storage), as are minimum users per tier, contract terms of 12 and 24 months, VAT treatment, payment methods and the 90-day cancellation notice. Single sign-on and the IONOS or STACKIT hosting options are marked "additional fee" without amounts and Special Plans are "on request", so the full annual cost of a regulated deployment is not computable from public pages alone.
Miro
Free at €0, Starter at '€8/month per member, billed yearly', Business at '€20/month per member, billed yearly' with a 20% yearly saving, and per-tier inclusions down to '50 AI credits/member/month' and MCP call limits, plus the 12-month auto-renewal with 90 days' notice, are all public. But the Enterprise tier is 'Custom pricing—from 30 members', every governance add-on is marked 'Paid add-on' with no figure, and free-plan limits and guest counting are not stated, so the cost of a compliant deployment cannot be computed.
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.