Index › Products › Miro · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Miro

15Judge labels

0First choices

7Negative labels

6 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Miro was named 3 times in EA tools, where SAP LeanIX led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business63 of 126

under the label threshold

Mid-market107 of 113

under the label threshold

Enterprise88 of 98

under the label threshold

In ea tools · 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
Enterprise architecture tools	IT operations and endpoint	0%	107 of 113	67%	3	under 10 labels · led by SAP LeanIX at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Miro yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

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	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	1
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0

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

Direct3 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained3 labelsNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative15 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

No positive label carried a quote.

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.

“they are *not* enterprise architecture tools because they lack a centralized, relational object repository” Gemini 3.5 Flash · EA tools · negative prompt · hard negative

“*Drawing tools* (like Lucidchart, Miro, or Visio) are purely visual.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · EA tools · scale prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Miro, over the 15 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

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Lucidchart12 of 150Not among the top eight

Archi9 of 155Not among the top eight

LeanIX8 of 152Not among the top eight

Ardoq8 of 150Not among the top eight

Bizzdesign Horizzon7 of 150Not among the top eight

IcePanel5 of 152Not among the top eight

MEGA HOPEX5 of 150Not among the top eight

SAP LeanIX5 of 150Not among the top eight

Structurizr5 of 150Not among the top eight

Excel3 of 150Not among the top eight

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 11 of the 15 answers that named Miro and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

erstudio.com7

catio.tech6

enterprise-architecture.org5

reddit.com5

youtube.com5

conexiam.com4

gartner.com4

superblocks.com4

thectoclub.com4

capterra.com3

No domain is on file for Miro, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

erstudio.com/blog/enterprise-architecture-tools7

catio.tech/blog/enterprise-architecture-tools6

youtube.com/watch5

superblocks.com/blog/enterprise-architecture-tools4

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-enterprise-architecture-tools-in-2025-features-pros-cons-comp3

enterprise-architecture.org/products/essential-open-source3

gartner.com/reviews/market/enterprise-architecture-tools3

leanix.net/en/blog/building-vs.-buying-an-ea-tool-4-common-pitfalls-to-avoid3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where Miro stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 135,000 a month (“miro”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 3,760 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 107 of 113 in EA tools

Segment leader

25%

SAP LeanIX

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 15 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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.

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 + Plugin 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.

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.