Comparison
Bystep vs Miro
The market-leading online whiteboard, now an "AI Innovation Workspace": sticky notes, FigJam-style boards, and — since 29 Jun 2026 — Miro Prototypes, which turns stickies/a PRD/a screenshot into a clickable prototype and can push it to a coding agent via MCP.
What Miro is
The market-leading online whiteboard, now an "AI Innovation Workspace": sticky notes, FigJam-style boards, and — since 29 Jun 2026 — Miro Prototypes, which turns stickies/a PRD/a screenshot into a clickable prototype and can push it to a coding agent via MCP.
- Pricing
- Free (3 boards) · Starter $8/user/mo · Business $20/user/mo (AI features, Prototypes) · Enterprise custom, 30+ seat minimum — per Miro's own pricing page, 2026.
Feature matrix
Where the two actually differ
Every Bystep item here is live in the product today — not a roadmap promise. Competitor claims we couldn't verify first-hand are marked “as far as we know.”
| Bystep | Miro | |
|---|---|---|
| PRD generation | Yes | NoNo idea-to-PRD wizard; Prototypes goes the other way — from an existing PRD/sticky board to a UI prototype |
| Acceptance criteria per task | Yesids like AC-checkout-1, derived from the PRD, editable by hand | NoBoards hold sticky notes and comments, not a structured, per-feature acceptance-criteria field |
| Verification gate | Yes`task complete` returns 409 without passing evidence or a recorded override | NoPrototypes hands work to a coding agent via MCP but does not verify what the agent built against anything |
| Evidence panel | Yestest output, diff stat, files touched, optional screenshot — stored, not just claimed | NoNo stored evidence of what passed or failed — the workspace is the board itself, not a proof record |
| Works with any coding agent | YesClaude Code, Cursor, Codex, Copilot, OpenCode, Gemini CLI via CLI + MCP | PartialOne-way handoff to "a coding agent" via MCP after Prototypes builds a UI; not a shared task loop the agent reports back into |
| Import / export formats | YesSpec Kit, OpenSpec, Backlog.md, Task Master, Kiro, Claude Code Tasks, GitHub Issues, Linear | NoNot part of any spec/tracker format hub — boards export as images/PDF, not PRD/task formats |
| Client mode / proposal | Yesclient-viewer share page + proposal for the Studio tier | NoBoards can be shared with a client, but there is no phase-approval workflow tied to a plan |
| Cost per feature | Yesper feature, not just per session | NoNo per-feature AI cost telemetry, as far as we know |
| Indonesian language & payments | Yesen/id UI, IDR pricing, QRIS/VA | NoEnglish-first product, USD-only pricing, no Rupiah/QRIS |
| Open-source CLI | Yes`@bystep/cli` + `@bystep/mcp`, MIT | NoClosed-source, venture-backed proprietary product |
Honest answer
When to choose Miro instead
- You want a free-form canvas for a live workshop with dozens of participants — sticky notes, drawing, and templates for almost any facilitation method, not a fixed six-step structure.
- Your team already lives in Miro for design/dev handoff (FigJam-style boards, diagramming, Miro Prototypes) and just needs one more surface, not a new system of record.
- You don't need the output verified against acceptance criteria, priced per feature, or shown to a client as a phase to approve — Prototypes stops at a clickable UI, not a task an agent proves it finished.
Bring what you've got, add the gate
Import your existing spec or backlog, let Bystep add acceptance criteria and a verification gate, and keep working with the agent you already use.