Digital whiteboard and collaboration tool comparison guide

●●●●●

Available on web, Windows, macOS, iOS, and Android.

●●●○○

Free education plan for all UoM staff and students.

●●○○○

No dedicated Canvas LTI integration. Miro whiteboards are accessed via the web or on mobile devices.

●●●●●

Very flexible sharing and roles. Boards can be private to a team or shared via link with configurable access (view/comment/edit). You can assign roles like viewer, commenter, editor, or set up team-based access for different groups.

●●●●○

Accessible via the Zoom app (desktop & mobile); limited editing capabilities outside of Zoom meetings.

●●●●●

Supported through an enterprise license and available to all UoM staff and students.

●●●○○

No direct Canvas integration. Instructors can share Zoom Whiteboard links or export snapshots to post in Canvas, but there is no dedicated Canvas app or LTI for Zoom’s whiteboard.

●●●○○

Access is tied to Zoom meeting participants by default. Only people in the Zoom session (or invited via a Zoom link) can collaborate. There aren’t granular roles on the whiteboard itself beyond the host controlling who can edit.

●●●●●

Integrated with Office 365 (accessible via web or the Whiteboard app on Windows, iOS, Android).

●●●●●

Supported through an enterprise license and available to all UoM staff and students.

●●○○○

No dedicated Canvas LTI integration. Whiteboards are accessed via Office 365; indirect integration is possible by using Microsoft Teams (which can be linked in Canvas) or by sharing Whiteboard links in Canvas.

●●●●○

Permissions managed through Office 365 accounts. Board owners can invite specific people (who can then edit) or share read-only links. Roles are essentially owner/co-owner vs. editor vs. viewer, based on sharing the document through OneDrive or Teams.

●●●●○

Web-based and mobile-friendly (via Padlet mobile app).

●●●●○

University license available to all staff to use in a ‘student’ role within Padlet. Students can contribute as anonymous guests if shared/invited by an instructor/staff member.

●●○○○

Padlet walls (including Sandbox boards) can be embedded in Canvas using an embed code. Currently no direct Canvas LTI integration at the University.

●●●●○

Currently only student role (available for teaching staff) is available, students instead can contribute as anonymous guests. The Padlet owner can invite collaborators if they also have a University Padlet account and can set permissions and access levels for different roles. The owner can share the link to invite guest contributors and control permissions around anonymous contributions.

●●●●●

Web application with mobile support through browser and companion apps.

●●●○○

●●●○○

Lucidchart offers an LTI app within Canvas for embedding diagrams directly in course content.

●●●●○

Role-based sharing through links or email invites. Creators can assign edit or view rights when sharing a diagram.

●●●●○

Web-based (Canvas integration) and responsive on mobile browsers.

●●●●●

Supported through an enterprise license and available to all UoM staff and students.

●●●●●

Complete Canvas LMS integration via LTI. Instructors and students can access Ed Discussion boards directly from their Canvas subjects with single sign-on and role sync.

●●●●○

Access is tied to LMS course enrolment. Roles are inherited from Canvas (e.g. teacher as moderator, students as participants), ensuring only the class cohort can view/post. This secure setup means you don’t manually share “links” — it’s embedded in the subject site with proper permissions.

●●●●●

Real-time collaboration and asynchronous editing; interactive presentation mode and whiteboard recording; full rich-toolkit including sticky notes, freehand drawing, countdown timers and extensive workshop templates; plus, voting/polling, chat and threaded comments for highly engaging active-learning sessions.

●●●●●

Strong facilitation tools for workshops. Instructors can set frames or sections of the board as starting views, use timers, add sticky notes or guided prompts, and leverage templates for activities. Great for dynamic workshop-style classes.

●●●●●

Boards persist over time and can be shared via link for ongoing collaboration. Students can contribute on their own time outside of class, and the board remains available for review or edit later.

●●●○○

Live collaboration tied to Zoom meetings (edits by signed-in users only); basic board tools—sticky notes, text, drawing and annotation; relies on Zoom’s separate Poll feature for voting. Ideal for simple, synchronous meeting-based interactions.

●●○○○

Limited dedicated workshop features. Relies on basic Zoom meeting controls (e.g. screen sharing and Zoom’s polling tool) for facilitation. Lacks specialised in-board timers or advanced moderator tools.

●●●○○

A Zoom whiteboard can be saved and accessed later if you explicitly save it or share it, but it’s primarily meant for live use. Outside of the meeting context, it’s not an ideal continuous collaboration space (unless exported and re-imported to continue work).

●●●●○

Real-time co-authoring inside Teams with seamless Office 365 sharing; offers sticky notes, ink annotations, basic shapes and education-focused templates (KWL charts, brainstorming); meets core interactive needs but uses Teams polls for embedded polling.

●●●○○

Basic facilitation functions. Integrates with Teams meetings for some meeting control (e.g. toggling editing rights) but has fewer dedicated teaching tools. It’s straightforward for quick brainstorming but not feature-rich for workshop moderation.

●●●●○

Whiteboards are saved to the cloud (OneDrive/Teams) and can be revisited through the web or app. Students and staff can return to a board later via a share link or their Office 365 account. This makes it usable for asynchronous brainstorming, though the experience is best within the Microsoft ecosystem.

●●●●○

Simultaneous contributions via link, QR code or embed; users add media-rich cards (text, image, video, drawing); configurable comments and upvotes/stars serve as lightweight polls; Sandbox mode adds freehand annotation—though no built-in timers or dedicated polling widgets.

●●●○○

Offers multiple layouts and templates that can support brainstorming or presentations. However, it has fewer advanced facilitator-specific features compared to Miro. Instructors can guide discussion by organising content into “cards” or sections on a Padlet. Please note, there are no built-in timers or voting within the Sandbox mode.

●●●●●

Designed for continuous input over time. A Padlet board remains available indefinitely, so students can keep adding ideas or comments asynchronously. Padlet is often used for ongoing brainstorming or as a “living” bulletin board that evolves over a course or project timeframe.

●●●●○

Collaborative diagramming with live co-editing and link/email sharing; canvas supports sticky-note shapes for brainstorming; threaded comments and @mentions for in-context discussion; lacks native workshop widgets like polls or timers.

●●●○○

Focused on diagram creation, not workshops. It provides a template library for flowcharts and concept maps, but no specialised facilitation tools.

●●●●○

Once a Lucidchart diagram is shared, collaborators can access and refine it at any time. It’s useful for asynchronous group work on diagrams. However, editing is synchronous (you’ll see others’ changes live if on at the same time) – which is fine for asynchronous workflows as long as people take turns or work at different times.

●●●○○

Asynchronous Q&A threads rather than live whiteboarding; features upvoting, thread-level polling, answer endorsement and correct-answer marking; highly interactive for discussion-based activities but not a traditional whiteboard.

●●●○○

Not a whiteboard, but it facilitates interaction through threaded discussions. Instructors can post polls, endorse answers, allow anonymous postings, etc., which support a moderated Q&A or discussion-based “workshop.” However, it’s not designed for live facilitation in class – it’s better for structured, ongoing discussions.

●●●●●

The discussion threads are always accessible, and participants can contribute at any time. It’s optimized for ongoing Q&A and doesn’t require everyone to be online simultaneously at all.

●●●●●

Very flexible input options. Supports sticky notes, freehand drawing/inking (with shape recognition), text boxes, image and file uploads, diagrams, stickers, tables, and even embedding of iframes or other media.

●●●●○

Boards can be exported as high-resolution images, CSV files or PDFs for offline viewing or archiving.

●●●○○

Basic content tools. Users can add text boxes, simple drawings (pen tool and basic shapes), sticky notes, and images. File upload support is limited beyond images.

●●●○○

Allows exporting whiteboards as PDF or PNG images. After a session, instructors can save the board and upload the file or share via Zoom’s cloud if the meeting is recorded.

●●●●○

Offers freehand inking with a stylus or mouse, sticky notes, text input, image upload, and basic table/grid insertion. (Integration with other Office content like OneNote is a plus for content sharing.)

●●○○○

Limited export formats. You can export as an image (PNG or SVG) from the Whiteboard app. There is no direct PDF export button (often one might use screenshot or print to PDF as a workaround).

●●●○○

Uses a card-based canvas (Padlet boards) or freehand annotation whiteboard (Padlet sandbox). Users can add text, images, links, and file uploads to Padlet boards via cards. Freehand drawing is limited (Sandbox mode introduces drawing and pointer tools, but it’s not as advanced as dedicated drawing apps). Note: The available content formats will depend on whether using the standard Padlet board vs a Padlet sandbox.

●●●●●

Excellent export and sharing. Padlet’s (including Sandbox boards) can be exported as images or PDFs, and even as a CSV (for wall posts data). There are multiple ways to share or embed Padlet content: live embed, share link, or even printing it out.

●●●●○

Focused on structured content. Primarily offers shapes, connectors/lines, text, and image uploads to create diagrams. It supports exporting in multiple formats (SVG, PNG, PDF) which reflects its emphasis on polished visual outputs.

●●●●●

Extensive export options. Diagrams can be exported to PDF, PNG, JPEG, SVG and more.

●●○○○

Primarily text-based input (discussion posts). Users can attach images or files to posts and use LaTeX for equations or embed code snippets, which is great for technical Q&A. However, it doesn’t support freehand drawing or rich whiteboard-style content within the discussion threads.

●●○○○

Very limited native export. Discussions mostly live on the platform. There’s no built-in export to PDF or document for a whole thread (instructors might resort to copy-pasting or screenshots for record-keeping). The content is meant to be viewed in-platform or via the LMS; it’s not designed for exporting the way whiteboards or diagrams are.

●●○○○

Miro has been working on accessibility, but some interactive elements may still pose challenges. Keyboard navigation and some assistive technology supports are offered, but certain complex canvas interactions might be difficult for screen reader users. Miro are currently committed to ensure compliance with WCAG 2.2 AA.

●○○○○

Zoom’s whiteboard isn’t optimised for screen readers, and keyboard-only navigation is minimal.

●●●●○

Accessibility features are great, similar to other products in the Microsoft ecosystem. Whiteboard supports keyboard shortcuts and works with screen readers to some extent. Users on Windows with assistive tech should find it relatively usable, although drawing aspects remain visual.

●●●○○

Padlet’s card layout is fairly screen-reader friendly (posts can be read in sequence). Keyboard navigation is supported for moving between posts/cards. However, real-time drawing on Sandbox might not be accessible to visually impaired users, so providing alternative participation modes might be needed.

●●●○○

Has features like alt-text for shapes and reading order settings. However, as complexity increases in Lucidchart, utilisation of assistive technologies becomes increasingly more challenging.

●●●●●

Highly accessible. Being primarily text-based, it works excellently with screen readers and keyboard navigation. The interface is clean and simple, which makes it inherently easier to use for those with visual or motor impairments.