Design
Miro
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro · miro.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Miro at a glance
- Vendor
- RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 1 Oct 2026
- Starting price
- “€8/month per member, billed yearly” (vendor’s words) source, captured 1 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Miro 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Miro — RealtimeBoard Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 16 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Miro — RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro of San Francisco, per the terms of service — is a collaborative AI whiteboard. Collaboration and handoff score strongest at 5 to 6: a documented five-step handoff, copy-to-Figma with fully editable elements, MCP pushes to Claude Code generating a React app from a prototype, and REST APIs and WebSDKs on every plan. AI administration scores 4 to 5, with per-feature access control, prompt blocking, provider and model choice, your own API key and an audit trail. Weakest are pricing transparency and sovereignty, each spanning 2 to 4: AI credits and MCP call limits are published per plan, but no per-seat price figure appears and Enterprise is listed as Custom; data residency is offered in the EU, US, Australia or Japan, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list or where AI processing runs. Design scores sit at 4 without spread — templates and clickable prototypes, no public information on reusable components or team libraries. The 2-to-4 spreads mark severity, not conflicting findings.
Speaks for it
- Developer handoff is unusually concrete: a documented five-step process, copy-to-Figma with fully editable elements, and an MCP push to Claude Code that generates a React app from the prototype.
- AI administration is granular — per-feature access control, prompt blocking before sensitive data or source code reaches a model, provider and model choice, your own API key, and an audit trail of AI interactions.
- REST APIs and WebSDKs are included on every plan, alongside named Jira and Confluence integrations.
- The terms state that the customer retains all intellectual property and other rights in Customer Content.
- The plan comparison publishes AI credits per member per month and MCP calls per day for each plan, from 100 to 10,000.
Held against it
- The captured pricing pages show no per-seat price figure; Enterprise is listed as Custom and add-ons such as Enterprise Guard appear as paid add-ons without prices.
- The documented board-data export runs through a third-party Marketplace app, and we found no public information on whole-file export in a documented format or on file access after cancellation.
- We found no public information on whether customer files or prompts train the vendor's models, on named providers, on commercial-use rights for generated output, or on indemnity.
- We found no published subprocessor list, no stated AI processing location, and no statement of which plan the EU residency option requires.
- We found no public information on reusable components, team libraries, variables or design tokens — the substance of a managed design system.
Best for
- You need collaborative early prototyping — clickable prototypes stakeholders can comment on, react to and vote on, generated from screenshots, PRDs or workshop output.
- Your bottleneck is designer-to-developer handoff, and your stack includes Figma, Jira, Confluence or coding agents such as Claude Code.
- You need admin-level control over AI use — blocking prompts containing source code, choosing providers and models, running on your own API key, with an audit trail streamed to your security tools.
- You want company fonts, colours, styles and templates centralised in a Brand Center and applied across boards in one click.
Avoid if
- You need a governed design system — reusable components, team libraries, variables or design tokens — rather than a templated canvas.
- You must compute an annual cost from public pages before talking to sales, including how guests or viewers are billed.
- Your procurement requires an EU-based contracting entity; the captured terms name RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro of San Francisco, USA, or a Miro affiliate named in an order.
- Your exit plan depends on whole-board export in a documented format rather than a third-party Marketplace app or copy-to-Figma.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Design, prototyping & design systems | 2 of 5 |
| Collaboration, review & developer handoff | 3 of 5 |
| Brand assets & governance | 2 of 5 |
| Files, formats & portability | 1.5 of 5 |
| AI features & rights to the work | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1.5 of 5 |
Design, prototyping & design systems
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The making itself: vector and layout tools, interactive prototypes, and the shared components, styles and tokens that keep a company's products and materials consistent — judged on what the feature and help pages document, not on showcase images.
0 — A single-purpose editor with no reusable components, no shared styles and no prototyping.
3 — Templates and basic shapes or layouts, with styles saved per file only and prototyping limited to linking screens.
5 — Reusable components and shared styles across files, responsive or auto layout, clickable prototypes with transitions, and team libraries that update where they are used.
8 — A design system managed in the tool: variables or tokens for colour, type and spacing with modes or themes, component variants and properties, prototypes with conditional logic, and library change notes with versions.
10 — The design system is a governed product: library releases versioned and reviewable, token export in a documented format for development, usage analytics per component, and accessibility checks such as contrast built into the editor.
The Product Designer
Clickable prototypes with commenting and a large template library are documented, and Brand Center pushes brand colours and fonts across boards. I found no public information on reusable components with variants and properties, team libraries that update where used, token modes, or versioned library releases, and the prototyping evidence shows generation and feedback rather than conditional logic. 5 6 9
The Frontend Engineer
Clickable prototypes on an infinite canvas, AI generation from screenshots, PRDs and sticky notes, and side-by-side variation comparison are documented — but that's a whiteboard with prototyping, not a design system. I found no public information on reusable components, shared styles across files, variables or tokens, team libraries, or token export in a documented format. Templates are the reuse story (29 prototype templates, 7,000+ overall), which tops out well below governed design tooling. 5 6 10
The Brand Marketer
The prototyping pages show clickable prototypes with comment, react and vote, AI generation from screenshots or PRDs, and a large library of prototype templates, which is more than linked screens. But I found no public information on reusable components, shared styles or design tokens that keep a company's materials consistent, so this is workshop prototyping rather than a governed design system. 5 6 10
The Agency Owner
Clickable prototypes stakeholders can comment on, twenty-nine prototype templates and AI generation of screens and flows from screenshots or PRDs are documented, which goes beyond linking screens. But we found no public information on reusable components, shared team libraries or design tokens, which is what keeps a studio's work consistent across a client's whole product. 5 6 10
The Data Protection Officer
Templates and canvas work are well evidenced — a template library, drag-and-drop editing, clickable prototypes stakeholders can comment on, react to and vote on, and a family of AI generators for prototypes, wireframes, diagrams and designs. We found no public information on reusable components, shared styles or tokens across files, or team design libraries with versions, which is the substance of a managed design system. 5 6 6 10
The Skeptic
Templates by the thousand, AI-generated prototypes that stay fully editable, and clickable prototypes for stakeholders to comment on — but I found no public information on reusable components, shared styles across files, team libraries, variables or tokens, which is what separates a design tool from a templated canvas. What is documented is prototyping at roughly the linking-screens level with feedback on top, sitting just above the template tier. 5 6 6 9 10
Collaboration, review & developer handoff
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Working on the same files with colleagues, clients and developers: comments and review, permissions for internal and external people, and the handoff that gives engineering measurements, assets and code rather than screenshots.
0 — Files shared as exports or links with no comments, no permissions beyond view or edit, and no developer view.
3 — Real-time co-editing and comments, but external reviewers need a paid seat or full access, and developers get only exported images.
5 — Comments with mentions and resolution, view-only and comment-only access for guests without a paid seat, permissions per file and project, and an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export.
8 — Branching or review of changes before they reach the main file, version history with restore, a developer mode that links components to code, an API and plugins documented, and named integrations with issue trackers and code tools.
10 — Handoff is a contract between design and code: component properties mapped to code components, token and asset export automated through the API, an audit log of access and sharing, and external access governed by domain, expiry and admin policy.
The Product Designer
Comments with @mentions on designs, a structured handoff flow with walkthroughs and a visible changelog, and an MCP handoff to coding agents like Claude Code that generate a React app from the prototype, with REST APIs and WebSDKs on every plan. I found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements and styles, per-file permissions, version history with restore, or guest access without a paid seat. 5 7 8 2
The Frontend Engineer
The MCP path is genuinely good handoff: a prototype pushed to Claude Code to generate a React app, integrations with Jira and Confluence, a copy-to-Figma workflow with fully editable elements, and REST APIs plus WebSDKs included on every plan. Comments, @mentions, react and vote are documented on prototypes. But I found no public information on an inspect mode with measurements, styles and asset export — the handoff page describes packaging specs and context by hand — and nothing on free guest access, branching, or version history with restore. 5 7 8 2
The Brand Marketer
Comments with mentions pinned to a specific part of an image, prototypes shared so stakeholders can comment directly, and a documented five-step handoff with a copy-to-Figma workflow and MCP pushes into coding agents give me a real review loop. I found no public information on version history with restore, branching before changes go live, or an inspect mode with measurements and asset export for developers. 5 7 8 2
The Agency Owner
The developer side is strong: a documented handoff process with walkthroughs and a visible changelog, a copy-to-Figma path with fully editable elements, an MCP handoff that generates a React app from the prototype, REST APIs on every plan and named Jira and Confluence integrations. We found no public information on branching or version restore, no inspect view with measurements, and nothing on whether external guests and clients need a paid seat to review. 7 8 2
The Data Protection Officer
Comments with mentions directly on uploaded images, real-time co-editing and a documented five-step handoff process are evidenced, and the developer path is strong: a copy-to-Figma workflow with fully editable elements, MCP handoff to a coding agent that generates a React app from the prototype, REST APIs and WebSDKs on all plans, and named Jira and Confluence integrations. We found no public information on view-only or comment-only guests without a paid seat, permissions per file or project, version history with restore, or an inspect mode with measurements and asset export. 7 8 2 2 9
The Skeptic
Comments, votes, mentions and real-time collaboration are documented, and the developer story is unusually concrete: a copy-to-Figma path with editable elements, handoff walkthroughs with a visible changelog, and an MCP push into Claude Code to generate a React app from the prototype, with REST APIs and WebSDKs on all plans. I found no public information on guest or reviewer access without a paid seat, version history with restore, or an inspect mode giving developers measurements, styles and assets. 5 7 8 2
Brand assets & governance
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keeping a brand usable and correct across a company: a central library for logos, images and templates, brand guidelines people can find, locked templates that let non-designers produce material, and rights and expiry metadata on every licensed asset.
0 — No shared asset library; logos and images are uploaded per file by whoever needs them.
3 — A shared folder of assets and some templates, but no guidelines, no locking of brand elements and no metadata beyond file names.
5 — A central brand library with logos, colours and fonts, templates with locked elements for non-designers, brand guidelines published in the tool, and tagging and search across assets.
8 — Rights, usage and expiry metadata on assets with warnings or automatic withdrawal on expiry, approval workflows for new assets and template output, version control on assets, and access per team, market or partner.
10 — Brand governance is auditable: every asset carries its licence, owner and permitted use, usage of each asset is tracked across files and channels, distribution to external partners is logged, and the whole library with metadata is exportable in a documented format.
The Product Designer
Brand Center is a central library of fonts, colours, styles and templates applied across the organisation, with custom templates and automatic styling to keep boards on brand. I found no public information on locked elements for non-designers, tagging and search across brand assets, or rights and expiry metadata on licensed assets. 10 9 10
The Frontend Engineer
Brand Center manages company fonts, colours, styles and templates with one-click automatic styling across boards, and a Brand Guidelines template exists for publishing guidance inside the tool — a central library with published guidelines. But I found no public information on locked elements for non-designers, tagging and search across assets, or rights, usage and expiry metadata on licensed assets. Admin insights monitor template usage, which is a start, yet approval workflows and asset versioning are absent from the captured pages. 10 9 10
The Brand Marketer
Brand Center to manage fonts, colours, styles and templates, automatic restyling to brand colours and fonts, custom templates built to brand guidelines, and admin insights on featured-template usage cover the central library I need across twelve offices. But I found no public information on locking brand elements so a sales office cannot move the logo, and nothing on licence or expiry metadata for images — the two things I check first. 9 9 10
The Agency Owner
Brand Center centralises fonts, colours, styles and templates and applies them across boards in one click, and there is a template for documenting brand guidelines. We found no public information on locked template elements for non-designers, on rights or expiry metadata for licensed assets, or on approval workflows — the governance half of a brand library. 9 10 10
The Data Protection Officer
A Brand Center to manage and apply company fonts, colours, styles and templates, one-click brand styling of boards and presentations, custom branded templates and a template for documenting brand guidelines are evidenced. We found no public information on locked elements inside templates for non-designers, tagging and search across brand assets, or rights, licence and expiry metadata on assets — which is what makes a brand library governable rather than merely available. 9 10 10
The Skeptic
Brand Center manages fonts, colours, styles and templates, custom templates enforce brand visuals, and automatic styling pushes brand colours and fonts onto boards — a real central library. I found no public information on locked elements for non-designers, tagging and search across the brand library, approval workflows, or rights and expiry metadata on assets; the brand guidelines evidence is a document template rather than governance of the assets themselves. 9 10
Files, formats & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the work can leave: open or documented file formats, export that keeps layers, vectors and components, offline or self-hosted options, and what happens to files after a downgrade, a removed seat or a cancelled contract.
0 — Files exist only in the vendor's cloud in a proprietary format, export is a flat image, and nothing is said about files after cancellation.
3 — Export to PNG, PDF and SVG per frame, but no export of whole files with structure, and files after a downgrade or cancellation addressed only in general terms.
5 — Whole files exportable to a local or documented format, vector and layered export (SVG, PDF) with text kept as text, bulk export of a team's files, and a stated period during which files remain accessible after cancellation.
8 — An open or publicly documented file format, export and import with other tools documented, an API that reads full file structure, files of removed users transferred to the organisation by policy, and a stated deletion timeline after the contract ends.
10 — Portability is built in: an open-source or openly specified format, self-hosting or a local-first option, round-trip export without loss of components and prototypes, and the customer's ownership of all files and their export rights written into the terms.
The Product Designer
Customer ownership of content is written into the terms and prototypes copy to Figma fully editable, but the only board-data export shown runs through a third-party marketplace app that converts sticky notes and shapes to table format. I found no public information on whole-file export with structure, a documented file format, or what happens to files after a downgrade or cancellation. 4 8 11
The Frontend Engineer
The terms state customers retain all intellectual property in their content, which is the right clause, but export is thin: board data (sticky notes, shapes, text boxes) converts to tables through a third-party marketplace app, and prototypes copy to Figma. I found no public information on a whole-file export format, layered SVG or PDF export with text kept as text, or bulk export of a team's boards. The privacy policy's 'as long as necessary' retention is the only word on what happens after a downgrade or cancellation. 3 4 8 11
The Brand Marketer
The captured pages show a copy-to-Figma workflow with fully editable prototype elements and table or CSV export through a third-party Marketplace app, and the terms state the customer retains all rights in their content. I found no public information on a documented file format, whole-board export with structure, or what happens to boards after a downgrade or cancelled contract. 4 8 11
The Agency Owner
The terms state the customer retains all intellectual property in their content, and prototypes copy to Figma fully editable, which is the kind of export I want to see. But the general board-data export that is documented runs through a third-party marketplace app converting stickies and shapes to tables, and we found no public information on whole-file export or on what happens to files after a cancellation beyond a general retention clause. 4 8 11 3
The Data Protection Officer
Customer ownership of all intellectual property in Customer Content is written into the terms, structured export of board data to a table or data application is documented — though the route runs through a third-party marketplace app — and prototypes copy to Figma as fully editable elements. We found no public information on whole-file export to a documented format, bulk export of a team's boards, or a stated period during which files remain accessible after cancellation; retention is addressed only in general privacy-policy terms. 11 11 8 3 4
The Skeptic
The exports on the record are narrow: a third-party Marketplace app that converts sticky notes, shapes and text into tables and CSV, plus copy-to-Figma for prototype elements — and that CSV path requires installing someone else's app. I found no public information on whole-file export with structure from the vendor itself, an open or documented format, or any concrete statement about boards after a downgrade or cancellation; the captured retention language is only general-purpose. 3 8 11 11
AI features & rights to the work
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the vendor's AI does with the customer's files and what the customer may do with the AI's output: training on customer content and the opt-out, the models and where they run, commercial use of generated images, stock licences and indemnity.
0 — Generative features with no statement on training on customer files, no named models, and no word on whether output may be used commercially.
3 — An AI page that promises responsibility but leaves open whether customer files train models, and output rights are stated only for some features or only in community terms.
5 — Training on customer content excluded or opt-out documented, AI features switchable by an admin for the organisation, model providers named, and commercial use of generated output permitted in the terms.
8 — Training excluded by default for business plans, the processing location of AI features stated, generated content labelled or carrying content credentials, stock and template licences stated per asset type, and an IP indemnity for generated output on a named plan.
10 — AI is governed in writing: a per-feature list of models, providers and locations, admin controls per team and feature, a log of AI use, training exclusion and output ownership in the contract terms, and indemnity and licence limits published in full.
The Product Designer
Admin governance is unusually strong: granular per-feature access, choice of providers and models, your own API key, prompt blocking before a model sees source code, and an audit trail of AI interactions. I found no public information on whether customer files train models, named model providers, commercial-use rights for generated output, or indemnity. 4 13 2
The Frontend Engineer
The admin tooling is the strong part: choose which providers and models may process data, run Miro AI on your own API key, block prompts containing source code before they reach a model, and stream an audit trail of AI interactions to your security tools, with AI credits metered per plan. But on rights I found no public information on whether customer files train models, on commercial use of generated output, on content credentials or labelling, or on indemnity. Provider choice is documented without naming a single provider or processing location. 4 13 2
The Brand Marketer
The AI trust page gives genuinely strong admin control — blocking AI or MCP by classification, choosing providers and models, running on your own API key, moderation filters and an audit trail — and credits are quantified per plan. But I found no public information on whether customer files train the models and no statement permitting commercial use of generated output, so I still cannot tell my offices whether an AI moodboard image may go on a trade-fair stand. 9 13 2
The Agency Owner
Admin control over AI is unusually thorough — per-feature access, organisation-wide moderation filters, blocking prompts with sensitive data, running Miro AI on your own API key, an audit trail of AI interactions. But we found no public information on whether customer files train the models, no named providers, and nothing on commercial rights to generated output or indemnity, which is what my clients ask about before accepting AI-assisted deliverables. 13 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
Organisation-level AI controls are unusually well evidenced: granular control over who gets access to which AI features, prompts containing sensitive data or source code blocked before they reach a model, an audit trail of AI interactions streamed to the security tools the customer already runs, provider and model choice including one's own API key, and organisation-wide moderation filters. The contract layer is what I cannot find: there is no public information on whether customer files or prompts train the vendor's models, no named default providers, no AI processing location, and nothing on commercial-use rights, content credentials or indemnity for generated output. 13 2 6 10
The Skeptic
The admin story is genuinely strong: AI blockable per feature, per board and at prompt level for sensitive data, organisation-wide moderation filters, your own API key and model choice, and an audit trail of AI interactions streamed to security tools. But on the questions that decide liability the captured pages are silent — I found no public information on whether customer content trains models, no named models, no commercial-use terms for generated output and no indemnity; the terms only say customers keep rights in Customer Content generally, which is not the same as governing generated output. 4 13 10
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where design files, brand assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where files are hosted, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — EU data residency available only on an enterprise plan or not at all, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI features send files outside the EU without an explained safeguard.
5 — EU hosting stated for files, a DPA available, but the contracting entity or significant parts of the chain (AI, rendering, support) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity, files, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.
The Product Designer
The contracting entity is US-based in San Francisco, data residency is offered as a choice including the EU, and certifications are published. I found no public information on a data processing agreement, the subprocessor list with locations and purposes, or where AI processing runs. 4 6 13
The Frontend Engineer
The contracting entity is RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro, San Francisco, with data residency selectable in the EU, US, Australia or Japan and ISO 27001, SOC 2 and GDPR compliance published. But the plan gating of the EU residency option is not stated, and I found no public information on a subprocessor list, a data processing agreement, or where AI prompts are processed. A US entity with an unnamed chain keeps this below the EU-contracting bar. 4 6 13
The Brand Marketer
The pages state a choice of data residency in the EU, US, Australia or Japan and carry GDPR-compliant, ISO 27001 certified and SOC 2 compliant claims, which is a start. The contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed in the captured pages and I found no published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, nor a stated processing location for the AI features. 13 6 11
The Agency Owner
The terms name RealtimeBoard Inc. of San Francisco — or an affiliate named in the order — as the counterparty, and while EU data residency is offered as one of four regions, no plan requirement is stated. We found no public subprocessor list, no information on a data processing agreement, and no statement of where AI processing runs; GDPR and ISO badges do not answer those questions. 4 13 6
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro of San Francisco, USA per the terms of service, and one captured page offers a choice of data residency in the EU, US, Australia or Japan — the only residency statement we found, and it says nothing about where AI prompts are processed. We found no published subprocessor list with locations and purposes, so which AI providers, hosting and support firms touch customer boards is not public; ISO 27001 certification and GDPR compliance are stated, and ISO 42001 is listed as ready. 4 13 6 11
The Skeptic
The contracting party is RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro of San Francisco (an Amsterdam office exists, but the captured terms name the US entity), while data residency in the EU, US, Australia or Japan is stated and ISO 27001 and SOC 2 are published. I found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations and purposes, on where AI processing runs, or on a DPA, and the pages I have do not say which plan the EU residency option requires — an EU storage checkbox in an American contract is only half an answer. 4 6 13
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual cost for their team from public pages alone — which seat types exist and what each may do, how viewers and guests are billed, how seats are added and trued up, AI credits, and the plan where SSO, admin controls and brand features begin.
0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.
3 — A per-seat price for an entry plan, but the seat types, the billing of guests and reviewers, and the plan needed for business features are unclear.
5 — Plans priced per seat type with their main features, but at least one commonly incurred cost (seat upgrades on request, AI credits, storage, brand or SSO add-ons) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every plan and seat type priced, free viewers and guests stated with their limits, how and when added seats are billed explained, AI credits and storage priced or included explicitly, and the plan that unlocks SSO and admin controls named.
10 — Complete cost computability: annual cost derivable for a given mix of editors, viewers and guests, true-up and auto-upgrade rules published, every add-on priced publicly, and contract term, renewal and downgrade conditions stated.
The Product Designer
The plan matrix is public in real detail, with AI credits and MCP call limits per plan, support and API tiers, and a free tier with stated limits and no credit card. I found no public information on per-seat prices, viewer or guest billing, or prices for add-ons such as Enterprise Guard, so a buyer cannot compute an annual cost. 2 9 2
The Frontend Engineer
The comparison grid is unusually granular: AI credits per member per month (limited trial on free, 25 on Starter, 50 on Business, enterprise pool from 2,500), MCP calls per day from 100 to 10,000, talktracks, video calls, support tiers, Enterprise-only APIs and named paid add-ons all stated per plan. But no seat price appears anywhere in the captured pricing pages, Enterprise is 'Custom', and I found no public information on how viewers or guests are billed, seat true-ups, or which plan unlocks SSO and admin controls. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from this. 2 9 2
The Brand Marketer
The plan pages name Free, Starter, Business and Enterprise and quantify AI credits, daily MCP calls, talktracks and support per plan, which is useful structure. But I found no public price for any seat — no currency amounts, no seat types, no viewer or guest billing — and add-ons such as Enterprise Guard and automated data classification appear only as paid add-ons without prices, with Enterprise quoted as "Custom", so I cannot compute a year's cost for my twelve offices. 2 2
The Agency Owner
The plan comparison is concrete about inclusions — 25 then 50 AI credits per member per month, daily MCP call caps from 100 to 10,000, and which plans get email support and Enterprise APIs. But we found no per-seat price figures on the captured pricing pages, and no public information on seat types, how guests or viewers are billed, or which plan unlocks single sign-on — so I cannot price a fifteen-person studio plus its clients from these pages. 2 2
The Data Protection Officer
The plan structure is clearly published — Free, Starter, Business and Enterprise with AI credits per member per month (limited trial, 25, 50, custom from 2,500 per month), MCP call limits per day per plan, talktracks, support levels, and add-ons such as Enterprise Guard and automated data classification labelled as a paid add-on. We found no per-seat price figures for any plan, no public information on how guests, viewers or added seats are billed, and no named plan where SSO and admin controls begin — so an annual cost for a given team cannot be computed from the captured pages. 2 2 9
The Skeptic
The plan matrix is detailed — AI credits per member and per plan, daily MCP call limits, Talktracks, video calls, support tiers, Enterprise Guard as a paid add-on, Enterprise credits starting from 2500 per month — but the captured pricing pages show no price figure for any seat in any currency, Enterprise is listed as Custom, and add-ons are marked paid without prices. I found no public information on how viewers, guests or reviewers are billed or on true-up rules, so an annual cost for a given team mix is not computable from what is public; the feature comparison is transparent, the money is not. 2 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Miro
Is Miro European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Miro as Rest of world.
Where does Miro store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Miro have a free plan?
Yes. Miro has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Miro?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Penpot (2.5/5), Sketch (2.5/5) and Frontify (2.5/5) highest among the other 13 Design products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Penpot (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Miro alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 86 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 10 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 9 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 data facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Design, prototyping & design systems — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Collaboration, review & developer handoff — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Brand assets & governance — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Files, formats & portability — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 AI features & rights to the work — found from sitemap miro.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →