miro.com landing page review

The hero describes collaboration but gives visitors no clear next step. The available actions—“Explore research” and “Explore the solution”—encourage browsing rather than starting a board or discussing an enterprise rollout.

1. 1High impactPrimary CTA

   There is no clear start action in the hero. The available CTA copy points visitors toward exploration instead of product use.

   Your CTA execution scores 3.2/10. Visitors who are ready to try Miro have to find their own path, while enterprise buyers have no obvious route to a sales conversation.

   Now

   “Explore research”; “Explore the solution”

   Change to

   Add a primary hero button labeled “Start a Miro board” that opens your existing board-creation flow, with account creation or login only where required. Add a secondary text link labeled “Talk to sales” that opens your enterprise sales flow.

2. 2High impactHeadline

   The headline sells a broad aspiration rather than a concrete reason to use Miro.

   Headline clarity scores 4.2/10, and the headline carries the most weight in this review. “Human collaboration” could describe dozens of tools; “the speed of AI” does not explain the work buyers can accomplish.

   Now

   “Human collaboration at the speed of AI”

   Change to

   “Turn research into plans your team can build”

3. 3High impactSocial proof

   Your adoption claim is substantial, but the surrounding numbers lack clear meaning in the page copy. There is also no customer quote connecting adoption to a useful business outcome.

   Social proof scores 3.6/10. Enterprise buyers need evidence that Miro supports real work, not just evidence that it has a large audience.

   Now

   “100M+”; “250+”; “6,000+”; “See how over 250,000 companies are getting great done in Miro”

   Change to

   Place “Used by over 250,000 companies” directly beneath the hero CTA. Give each remaining number a visible label naming exactly what it counts; remove any number you cannot clearly substantiate. Below this strip, add one approved customer quote about aligning teams or moving research into delivery, with the speaker’s name, role, company, and a link to the supporting customer story.

4. 4High impactHero subheadline

   The subheadline introduces “Intelligent Canvas” and “agents” before explaining what buyers will actually do.

   A product or innovation leader needs to recognize their workflow immediately. “Think, plan, and build together” is broad enough to leave the product’s practical value unclear.

   Now

   “The Intelligent Canvas where your team and agents think, plan, and build together”

   Change to

   “Bring research, ideas, and AI outputs into one shared canvas. Use Miro to align your team and turn insights into workflow diagrams, roadmaps, and specs.”

5. 5Medium impactResearch section CTA

   The research section describes a useful workflow, but its CTA does not tell visitors what they will see next.

   “Explore research” sounds like a content library rather than a demonstration of how Miro helps a team use research. That weakens an otherwise concrete section.

   Now

   “Turn research into shared direction”; “Explore research”

   Change to

   Keep “Turn research into shared direction”. Replace its CTA with “See the research-to-roadmap workflow” and link directly to a walkthrough showing research brought into a canvas, reviewed by a team, and turned into a roadmap.

6. 6Medium impactCapabilities section

   Most capability headings name product concepts rather than the jobs they help buyers accomplish.

   Your page is already easy to scan, at 8.7/10, but scanning “Formats” and “Blueprints” does not explain why those capabilities matter. Buyers must read deeper to connect features to their work.

   Now

   “AI”; “Intelligent Canvas”; “Formats”; “Blueprints”; “Enterprise Security & Scale”

   Change to

   Replace the headings, in order, with “Turn ideas into diagrams with AI”; “Align your team on one shared canvas”; “Move from insights to roadmaps and specs”; “Start with a blueprint”; “Support collaboration at enterprise scale”.

• Replace the hero headline with “Turn research into plans your team can build”.
• Replace the hero subheadline with the proposed two-sentence explanation of the shared canvas and its outputs.
• Move the existing adoption claim beneath the hero action and shorten it to “Used by over 250,000 companies”.
• Change “Explore research” to “See the research-to-roadmap workflow” if its destination already demonstrates that workflow.

• Visual hierarchy scores 3.4/10 despite modernity at 9.4/10. Make the hero’s reading order explicit: one headline, one supporting paragraph, one dominant start action, then adoption proof. Keep the workflow example subordinate to that sequence.
• Consistency scores 5.6/10. Consolidate the 22 font sizes into a defined heading, body, caption, and button scale; use Roobert for headings and one body family consistently. Standardize the 25 border-radius values into a small set for controls, cards, and containers.
• Responsiveness scores 7.6/10. At narrow widths, place the primary CTA immediately after the subheadline and before the workflow demonstration. Verify that only the active responsive version of each heading is visible and exposed to assistive technology.
• Polish is already strong at 8.7/10, with hover and focus treatments present. Preserve those treatments on the new hero actions, and add useful alternative text to informative images; only about 31% of images currently have it.

• “Turn research into shared direction” is a strong, outcome-led heading. Keep it as the model for the rest of the page.
• The sequence from bringing in research to reviewing it together and sending insights into roadmaps or specs gives buyers a concrete workflow. Preserve that specificity.
• The page is already scannable and technically modern. You need a clearer proposition, stronger evidence, and a visible start path—not a wholesale visual redesign.