2-minute summary

• Use a visual board for a defined workshop, map or shared planning task—not as a default home for every project.
• Evaluate Miro when you need a dedicated visual workspace and want to examine board roles, guest or visitor access, export and administration in detail. Availability varies by plan.
• Evaluate FigJam when a lightweight workshop or diagram space fits the task, particularly if the team already works in Figma. Check file permissions and open-session rules for the intended plan.
• Use a document, spreadsheet or task tool when the information is mainly linear, structured or assigned.
• Test accessibility with the actual participants and features, then preserve decisions and actions in a readable linear format.

Quick recommendation

Best for: Miro for a dedicated visual workspace with detailed administration, or FigJam for a lighter workshop flow where Figma already fits.

Not ideal for: Linear information, assigned tasks or structured records that a document, spreadsheet or task tool communicates more clearly and accessibly.

Main strengths: A defined workshop test reveals participant access, facilitation, board roles, export and the effort required to preserve decisions after the session.

Limitations and trade-offs: Open links, guest roles, retention and accessibility vary by plan and feature; a visually engaging board can still obscure ownership and actions.

What to do next: Run one representative session with actual participants, test access and export, then preserve decisions in a readable linear record.

Evidence to check: Check current first-party documentation against one representative task. Record required plan features, corrections, exceptions, ownership and stop conditions. If evidence is missing, leave the decision unresolved and recheck time-sensitive facts before adoption.

Trust & review information