Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 5 → 10 of 69
2 categories · RankedMiro
84Judge labels
2First choices
35Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in Org charts for mid-market buyers
Rank 17 of 95 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 43% of its 30 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Miro →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business10 of 72
2%33 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market17 of 95
2%30 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise85 of 86
0%18 labels
criticized challenger
In org charts · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named Miro for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Org charts and org design | Workforce planning and analytics | 2% | 17 of 95 | 43% | 30 | criticized challenger | ▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Internal communications and intranet | Onboarding and employee experience | 0% | 66 of 86 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Teams at 14% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Miro held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 13 points.
Best category · Org charts · by segment
Mid-market▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 8 → 16 of 90
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 13 pointsRank 83 → 79 of 80
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Org charts | 4% | 2% | ▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 8 → 17 of 95 |
| Internal communications | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 13-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 58 → 66 of 86 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 13 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Miro across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Miro across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
By framing
Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.
FramingLabels by classFirst choices
Direct7 labelsNone
Paraphrase16 labels2
Comparative18 labelsNone
Budget-constrained12 labelsNone
Scale-constrained8 labelsNone
Negative23 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative84 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 2 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Org Chart Software (like Lucidchart, OrgChart, or Miro)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Org charts · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“these whiteboarding tools are excellent for workshops. They are less expensive but require manual upkeep” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Org charts · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Miro is a great place to begin and can later evolve into a more formal tool.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Org charts · paraphrase prompt · alternative
“Creately/Miro (free tiers): Unlimited basic use with limits on canvases/objects” Grok 4.1 Fast · Org charts · budget prompt · alternative
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“Static diagramming tools such as Lucidchart, Miro, Creately, SmartDraw, Visio, PowerPoint, Excel, and Word when they are used as the primary org-chart system” Perplexity Sonar · Org charts · negative prompt · hard negative
“General Diagramming Suites (Avoid for scaling) * *Examples:* Lucidchart, Miro, Visio” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Org charts · scale prompt · hard negative
“Avoid: ... Miro - No native employee directory layer; relies on manual updates” MiniMax M2.5 · Org charts · negative prompt · hard negative
“static diagramming tools (like Lucidchart, Miro, or Visio) fail” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Org charts · direct prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Miro, over the 84 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Miro was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Miro, over the 84 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Miro was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.
What carried it into the answer
The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Miro. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 72 of the 84 answers that named Miro and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
forbes.com35
onedirectory.com30
g2.com26
worldmetrics.org26
firsthr.app25
theorgchart.com24
venngage.com23
gitnux.org18
organimi.com18
peoplemanagingpeople.com18
243 of the 243 domain citations in answers naming Miro came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
miro.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Miro takes 2% of first choices and ChartHop takes 30%.ShowHide
Search and answers
miro.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Miro takes 2% of first choices and ChartHop takes 30%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “org chart tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “org chart software”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 135,000 a month (“miro”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 3,760 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 1,089,824 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 50,329 · 4,601 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 59,231
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 17 of 95 in org charts
Segment leader
30%
ChartHop
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 84 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 72 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on miro.com
13,709
subdomains included
Content
259
counted in the table below
Documentation
13,425
Product · Integration
0 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conference or event | 112 | 0 | 2020-07-05 | ||
| Comparison | 55 | 0 | 2022-01-01 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 42 | 0 | 2022-09-16 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 25 | 0 | 2023-03-13 | ||
| Template or tool | 14 | 0 | 2022-07-08 | ||
| Report or ebook | 6 | 0 | 2023-02-26 | ||
| Case study | 2 | 0 | 2021-08-25 | ||
| Podcast or video | 2 | 0 | 2021-02-08 | ||
| News or press | 1 | undated |
Most recent
- 2023-03-13What is the best practice to brand a board 12421 glossary or explainer
- 2023-02-26Endless buffering board is viewable but not editable on chromebook 12235 report or ebook
- 2022-09-23What is the arrow in the top right 9914 glossary or explainer
- 2022-09-16Miro webinars september agenda 2022 9831 webinar or virtual event
- 2022-09-01Webinar recording getting started with the miro developer platform 9657 webinar or virtual event
- 2022-08-02One stop for miro webinars 9332 webinar or virtual event
Events in person
Upcoming
- November 5, 2026 to November 6, 2026Miro Pulse | NYCLe Bernardin, South Privé: 153 West 51st Street, New York · hosts
Last twelve months
- September 17, 2026Miro Summer Cocktails | NYCThe Raines Law Room, Chelsea: 48 West 17th Street, New York, NY 10011 · hosted
- September 15, 2026Miro Pulse Singapore 2026: Co-create the next big thing with AIAltro Zafferano · hosted
- December 2, 2025Exclusive Executive Dinner at SW SteakhouseSW Steakhouse · hosted
- December 2, 2025Exclusive Executive Dinner at SW SteakhouseSW Steakhouse, Las Vegas, US · hosted
- November 30, 2025 to December 4, 2025Miro at AWS re:InventThe Venetian, Booth #135 · exhibited
- November 30, 2025 to December 4, 2025AWS re:InventThe Venetian, Booth #135, Las Vegas, US · exhibited
As the event pages on miro.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page miro.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Miro
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Miro; a claim can dispute any of them.
Miro/Workday modules 1Mural / Miro 1
Follow Miro
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Miro is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Miro is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- AI Innovation Workspace; "The Intelligent Canvas where your team and agents think, plan, and build together"
- For
- teams and cross-team collaboration; product development teams
- Free plan or trial
- Ücretsiz üye olun miro.com/tr/product
- Integrations claimed
- 250 miro.com · 130 miro.com/tr/product pages disagree
- Certifications
- ISO 42001 READYISO 27001 CERTIFIEDSOC 2 COMPLIANTGDPR COMPLIANTISO/IEC 42001:2023ISO/IEC 27001:2022SOC 2 Type IISOC 3
- Hosting
- AUSEUUSJapan
- Customers named
- ASOSAccentureDeloitteUlta BeautyCVS HealthPepsiCoDanaher CorporationUbisoft
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price
What Miro's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: miro.com, trust.miro.com, miro.com/tr/product, miro.com/tr/customers, miro.com/tr/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Is this your product?
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Miro's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Miro, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Miro by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Miro is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Miro, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.