Coda, acquired by Grammarly in early 2025, is a template-based document creation and collaboration solution, supporting a variety of use cases.
$0
per month
Miro
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
Miro empowers cross-functional teams to flow from early discovery through final delivery on a shared, AI-first canvas. With the canvas as the prompt, Miro’s AI capabilities keep teams in the flow of work, and scale shifts in ways of working.
$0
Pricing
Coda by Grammarly
Miro
Editions & Modules
Free
$0.00
per month
Pro
$10.00
per month per doc maker; unlimited editors (paid annually)
Team
$30.00
per month per doc maker; unlimited editors (paid annually)
Enterprise
Custom Pricing
1. Free - To discover what Miro can do. Always free
$0
2. Starter - Unlimited and private boards with essential features
$8
per month (billed annually) per user
3. Business - Scales collaboration with advanced features and security
$16
per month (billed annually) per user
4. Enterprise - For work across the entire organization, with support, security and control, to scale
contact sales
annual billing per user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Coda by Grammarly
Miro
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
With Coda, you only pay for Doc Makers.
Often one person creates a doc, others edit it, and some simply observe from afar. Instead of charging for everyone, we only charge for the people who create docs.
Interested in enterprise pricing? Visit coda.io/enterprise
Monthly billing also available at $10 per month for the Starter plan, or $20 for the Business plan.
Coda is a more complete package that is very robust and will meet the needs of almost any organization who wants to track project and meet desired timelines. By implementing project trackers the team can easily collaborate together and get the work done. Coda is much easier to …
We previously used airtable, and I'm not sure why we switched, but it seems like Coda has more flexibility and is a little more user friendly for generic users and not power users.
Coda is not as great as ClickUp or Notion in many ways, but it surely has a better user interface and pricing in my view and allows good collaboration. However, integrations work much better with other competitors as compared with Coda, and would prefer others if pricing was …
Trello seems to be more focused on IT oriented projects where as Coda has wide scale applications across all departments. Coda was selected because of the perception it was more dynamic and I believe it has proven to be more dynamic. Coda is a very easy to use and understand …
I don't know why leadership choose Coda over Google, but I do see the value in the organization as well as diversity of what you can do with pages designs and integrations
We used Airtable for a while and looked at Notion briefly. Airtable is good, yet a bit technical and doesn't come with rich text and formatting capabilities--so less suitable for publishing/sharing with the rest of the organization. We haven't used Notion for real; I did look …
Coda is very aesthetically appealing and fun to create docs. The benefit of Coda is that it makes a lot automated, but what is sacrificed is the flexibility that other tools can offer.
For general use cases, Google Docs or Airtable are often a better starting place. But if things get complex or you're constantly pairing the two together, consider graduating to Coda to save yourself long-term headaches.
Notion is great for personal use, but the powerful …
The tables within Coda are similar to lists in SharePoint or Google Tables, but the document portion of Coda is what sets it apart. Having the ability to summarize that table data in a document is unique to Coda.
Coda is the only tool with the ability to fully customize your views and the behavior within a given data table. They've put a LOT of thought into this and are miles above and beyond Smartsheet, Airtable, and Notion (I've evaluated all three extensively).
We were looking for many different things to improve our internal processes before we came across Coda. A large part of my work involves marketing, project management, service management and data analytics. For a company like ours, we find Coda the most cost-effective and …
I first tried Notion and, although it can be easier to work with for some simple tasks, when it comes to tables and linked data, Coda is more versatile and comprehensive.
For the use we needed in the company, Coda was a way easier and simpler solution. Jira and the Atlassian suite is more complete and structured, but it is was way too complicated.
Coda's automation and flexibility makes it much easier and more interactive than other tools like Airtable. With Airtable, we couldn't get as much traction or flexibility, so we stopped using it after a few months. Jira, on the other hand, has proven to be more helpful for task …
I primarily use Mavenlink for scheduling purposes but with Coda, I'm able to do that, plus have an open way to communicate with the rest of my team when we want to add certain artists to a specific job. Instead of using another software for communicating across all of our …
They are similar but I like that Coda has more templates that are suited for marketing (GTM timelines, pulse updates, etc). One pain point for us is getting the engineering team on Coda but they seem to prefer Jira and Aha!
While all of the products listed have great features and platforms, there was always one thing missing from them that I would need to get from another application. Coda was the first one we used that really combined some of the best parts of those products and allowed us to use …
The price point is most attractive, they have a dedicated team of support agents/doc makers that provide valuable templates, and it really was the best option to fit our current needs as a startup team who will be scaling and the product can scale with us in the long run.
Miro is the more collaborative option, offering the ability for many individuals to work on the same item real-time. Though it does create some duplicate entry, we've found this added cost is minimal compared to the opportunity cost of lost collaboration.
Earlier we were using different products for different requirements, such as Microsoft whiteboard, lucidcharts for diagrams. But as Miro has all these features and other additional features which makes it "all in one place" and enable us to save out time which earlier was …
Miro is great for collaborating. I think it definitely is better than Mural and Jamboard because it has more features and it's easier to use. Compared to FigJam, as a designer I would probably choose Figjam to have everything in the same product. However, in my opinion, Miro …
We ran a business case analysis for these, and they didn't come close. Visual omnipresent collaboration is a must; list of different features is way longer in Miro; Kanban and its views is less clunky and requires less fiddling out of the box — Trello needed to be set up …
Miro was a big hit with all the teams involved, it was easy to stand up and start using, easy to license, and easy to manage. Other tools offered stronger connections to tools in their product suite without the freedom and ease of use that Miro did.
I was a while ago that I use Mural. At that stage the features where similar. However, Miro has developed at a very quick pace and is always adding features to improve the product, so I have had no reason to look elsewhere.
I think they all have very good features and are similar to a certain extent, however, Miro includes all the interactive features and allows you to create without limitations on format or page sizes, or oversaturation of users within the same session, which is why I appreciate …
Miro basically cover the needs of all the other tools. I started using Miro extensively during the pandemic and at that point only Jamboard provided similar options and was free when collaborating in a bigger group and when not everyone had a license. This is still the main …
As I've mentioned, I've used Figjam before. Figjam is better for more detailed and design based ideation workshops. But Miro is better for people without much tech ability.
We assessed these tools to gain a better understanding because they are excellent and have certain unique features. But in the end, we chose Miro since it offers all the features that ClickUp, Stormboard, and Conceptboard do. Additionally, it has a special feature that lets you …
We tested every product, but the biggest problem we encountered was that most of them required plugins in order to centralize all of our work. Other problems included the products' excessive price, which was higher than Miro's. Last but not least, Miro offered us an all-in-one …
In my opinion, Microsoft White Board does not compare. So much lag, much more limited functionality (ability to customize visuals and text), no ability to lock content, etc. Mural I haven't used as much. Probably closer in competition to Miro - felt pretty similar. Miro I …
FigJam is particularly tailored for design led product teams so lack the versatility which Miro provides Better for workshop facilitation but clucky UI
Jira is actively used in conjunction with Miro to track activities, and it offers functionalities that differ from Miro. However, it is much easier to create tables and diagrams in Miro. The advantage of Jira is that it enables the management of digital projects more …
I find Miro to be more user-friendly than Figma, where we had a very steep learning curve trying to achieve real-time collaboration with both tech and non-tech users. I haven't personally spent a lot of time using that tool or others, however. At this point, I have a strong …
Coda is great to build a place for your users to go to and see information. It is easy to navigate through and the variety of content creation is great. However, it is not always easy to create what you want and there is a lot of playing around and learning. Coda also sometimes misses some functionality which is expected. For example, downloading a list of users that have access to the platform. Being able to send push notifications when a new page has been created etc. Overall it is a good tool to use just be prepared to invest time!
I remember a project where all our different teams were involved in it. I created a board with timelines, KPIs, and customer journey stages, and each team added their input live. We were all able to work together in real time, view the entire project, and leave comments without switching apps, which is why it worked fantastically for us. Everyone benefited from the hours of time it saved, and we made a good profit on that project, for which I was named employee of the month.
One source of truth: It's incredibly easy to keep everything organized and easy to find.
Being able to show different views of the same information throughout your doc makes it really easy to customize the information.
In general, I love the "coding" aspect of it, and being able to do advanced functions has helped us create some really interesting automation and streamline our process.
When using the find functionality to locate an item in a Miro board, I do not like that it keeps my previous searched term. Other programs, like Excel, do this but they have it so that you can easily overwrite the previously-searched term.
It would be helpful if you could search by a particular frame, instead of the entire board. For our quarterly backlog review, we often have items that carry over, so there are duplicates on the board. Being able to search by a frame would make this easier.
Understanding who can access a board is not always clear to me.
Coda is definitely something that has been proven to drive positive impact in our organization. We have many divisions that can benefit from this that we have yet to explore. It would definitely be worth renewing.
I have advocate for the renew of Miro quite few times, however, it is not under my control as the decision is made in another team with their own budget. I would buy for my own entrepreneur projects (1-2 members) as I do know the value and work there 100%. So, I would pay out of my own pocket to get the value. However, If I wouldn't know the value it provides, it would be hard to decide with the current freemium features
There is a little bit of a learning curve on where to point and click to add in different elements and make edits. But it is still very manageable once you get the hang of it. I do still have some issues with some of my connected pages updating each other when I don't want them to sync. So I'll end up editing one page, and it will make the same edits on another page.
The platform is flexible, easy to use, and simple because Miro is a great visualization tool that makes it easy to collaborate on creating charts. It helps in creating workflows and other designs easily and securely. It supports integrations with major cloud storage solutions and office suites. On top of that, it provides a decent free plan, which is sufficient for basic usage.
I only give a 9/10 because of the speed at which it loads. I have never experienced issues with Miro logging me out early, or some other technical issue causing the program to crash, or even it just loading in perpetuity without ever actually coming up (unlike other programs such as SFDC). It take a minute for all of my boards to come up after I click on it in my favorites, but besides that, it's all good.
We haven't done any integrations - the initial part of our experience we found that for docs with complex formulas, the page tends to load slowly but in recent months, Coda has improved and optimized the loading times in general and we generally don't find any problems in terms of speed anymore.
Sometimes it gets quite slow and there is a correlation between this and the size of the board. Hence we are trying to segment the boards based on product stages or projects so that the size doesn't go big. When you go from discovery to delivery on a simple board, it will get large and difficult to load, even crash or go white screen
Mainly due to timezone differences. I think Coda's support in general is well implemented and executed. They know their stuff and are helpful. But since I'm not in the same timezone, solution rates are slower for me, and that's not something I prefer. I work in customer service, too, and more often than not, time is important. Shortening the solution time would be a much greater experience.
We have never reached out to or contacted support because Miro's platform has been incredibly intuitive and user-friendly. The comprehensive resources available, such as tutorials, documentation, and community forums, have provided all the guidance we needed. The seamless integration with our existing tools and the reliability of the platform have ensured that we rarely encounter issues that require external assistance. This self-sufficiency has allowed us to focus more on our projects and collaboration without interruptions. Overall, our experience with Miro has been smooth and efficient, eliminating the need for additional support
There was a series of webinars which Miro hosted with our organization that went over the basics, then progressively became more advanced with additional sections. The instructors were knowledgeable, and provided examples throughout the sessions, as well as answered peoples' questions. There was ample time and experience on the calls to cover a range of topics. The instructors were also very friendly and sociable, as well as honest. Of course Miro isn't a "God-tool" that does absolutely everything, but the instructors were aware and emphasized the strengths where Miro had them and sincerely accepted feedback.
I'm relatively inexperienced but this experience is meaningful. It would have been nice to have some guidance from Coda so that we understood more on Coda's purpose and potential.
Easy to learn, Miro has a series of videos on YouTube that effectively taught this program to my team members and me. The program is drag-and-drop and works excellently. People pick up on how to use it efficiently, and it's great for organizing ideas more freely. This product is more challenging for some older audiences who are not accustomed to using a touchpad, but for most, it was very easy to use.
For general use cases, Google Docs or Airtable are often a better starting place. But if things get complex or you're constantly pairing the two together, consider graduating to Coda to save yourself long-term headaches. Notion is great for personal use, but the powerful automation and collaboration features in Coda make it a better fit for teams in my experience so far.
Miro is the more collaborative option, offering the ability for many individuals to work on the same item real-time. Though it does create some duplicate entry, we've found this added cost is minimal compared to the opportunity cost of lost collaboration.
I think scalability is definitely good here since it's based on number of doc makers. Implementation into each dept becomes simpler. That being said, due to the nature of our work, we find it easier that we have a "super user" and then a team of other doc makers. This would make the doc creation and management more efficient.
Miro is great for scaling. In every department and subdivision across my entire organization, there is someone using it. From Sales to marketing, to manufacturing and operations; and even in legal and finance, there isn't a process or a department that is not using Miro, and if they aren't, they're missing out! Even at the highest to the lowest levels of the organization, it is essential for virtual collaboration.