Miro vs Figma

Miro has the higher Churn Health Score at 42/100 (grade D), versus Figma at 40/100 (grade D). Higher score means healthier retention signal. The score is a public-signal estimate built from G2 reviews, Hacker News mentions, Reddit threads, layoffs data, and pricing changes, not a measured churn rate.

Start at 100. Public retention signals are scored across five axes: review sentiment trend (G2 + Capterra), social discussion sentiment (Hacker News + Reddit), pricing-trust events (raises, model changes, removed tiers), workforce signals (layoffs, executive churn), and product-direction signals (deprecations, AI bolt-ons that contradict the audience). Each negative signal deducts; the floor is 0. Grades: A+ = 90-100, A = 80-89, B = 65-79, C = 50-64, D = 35-49, F = 0-34. The methodology is public.

No. Miro and Figma do not publish their churn rates. The Churn Health Score is a public-signal proxy: it measures the trajectory of trust events visible to outside observers. A score of 42 versus 40 reflects directional difference in those signals, not a measured percentage of customers leaving each month.

Not on score alone. The Churn Health Score is one input among many: feature fit, integration coverage, team workflow, pricing, and roadmap velocity all matter more for the switching decision. The score is most useful for noticing trust trajectory, especially when one company's score is dropping while a competitor's is stable. Both Miro and Figma have customer bases that stay despite the score; many will move regardless.

Paste your cancellation feedback into RetentionCheck at /audit. Free, no signup. The analysis returns a Churn Health Score (0-100, A-F), the top 5-8 churn drivers ranked by severity with confidence scores, direct customer quotes backing each driver, and a priority action. The methodology used on /grade pages is the same one applied to your data, but driven by your real cancellation feedback rather than public signals.