Side-by-side record

Azure Boards vs. Visily

A side-by-side view of the product records we have today. Use it to narrow the question, then confirm current pricing, limits, and security details with each vendor.

The short version

Azure Boards starts at Free per seat, versus Visily at Free. Visily carries the higher aggregate rating (4.8/5 vs 4.2/5). Azure Boards lists more integrations (14+ vs 13+).

Full comparison

	Azure Boardsfrom Free	Visilyfrom Free
Audyense Score	71ASStrong	64ASFair
Positioning	Plan, track, and discuss work across your teams	Make your ideas look as good as they sound.
Free tier	Yes	Yes
Deployment	Cloud / SaaS	Cloud / SaaS
Best fit	Startup, SMB, Mid-market, Enterprise	Startup, SMB, Mid-market
Pricing plans	Stakeholder (Free)Free Basic$6 Basic + Test Plans$52	StarterFree Pro$11 Business$29 EnterpriseCustom pricing
AI features	PartialCopilot-assisted features exist (PR descriptions, some work-item assistance), but no dedicated AI planning features	YesCore differentiator — text/screenshot-to-wireframe, AI deep design, diagram AI
Design systems / component libraries	NoNot a design tool; no design-system management capability	PartialWorkspace-level shared component/template/theme library (Business tier), no true design-token governance
Prototyping	NoNo prototyping features; a work-tracking tool, not a design tool	YesInteractive prototypes with auto-linking between screens, hi-fi/lo-fi modes
Public API	YesFull REST API and client libraries, widely used for integrations and automation	PartialVisily MCP server access (Pro+) for AI-agent integration; no general public REST API
Real-time collaboration	PartialBoards update live for status/assignment changes and support @mentions; no simultaneous multi-cursor editing	YesCursor chat, comments, follower mode, live co-editing
Product roadmapping	PartialDelivery Plans provides cross-team timeline/roadmap views, more basic than dedicated roadmap products	PartialRoadmap templates and AI-generated timeline/bubble charts, but template-based, not a dedicated prioritization module
Templates library	YesBuilt-in process templates (Agile, Scrum, Basic, CMMI) and customizable work-item templates	Yes1,500+ templates advertised, workspace-level libraries on higher tiers
Version history	YesFull audit history on every work item, plus source-control history via linked Repos commits	Yes7-day (Pro) / 30-day (Business) version history
Whiteboarding & diagramming	NoNo native whiteboard/visual collaboration canvas	YesSticky notes, flowcharts/diagramming; positions partly as a Miro alternative
Mobile app	PartialNo dedicated native Boards mobile app from Microsoft; third-party apps and responsive web view exist	NoWeb-based only; offers templates for designing mobile app UIs but no native app
Integrations verified	14+	13+
Aggregate rating	4.2 · 190 reviews	4.8 · 32 reviews
Integrations	GitHubGitHub EnterpriseMicrosoft TeamsSlackAzure PipelinesAzure Repos+8 more	FigmaNotionSlackJiraConfluenceMicrosoft Teams+7 more
Security & compliance	ISO 27001ISO 27018SOC 1SOC 2+2 more	—
Pros	Deep native integration with the Microsoft/Visual Studio ecosystem and Entra ID identity Highly customizable work-item types, boards, and process templates (Agile, Scrum, CMMI) Strong traceability linking work items directly to commits, pull requests, and builds Generous free tier — 5 free users plus unlimited free Stakeholder seats	Intuitive drag-and-drop interface with a fast learning curve, accessible to non-designers AI screenshot-to-wireframe and text-to-wireframe conversion speeds up early concepting Real-time collaboration with cursor chat, comments, and follower mode Large template and component library accelerates starting new designs
Cons	UI and developer ergonomics considered clunkier than GitHub, GitLab, or Jira by many reviewers Steeper configuration complexity for customizing processes and boards Weaker third-party plugin and marketplace ecosystem than Jira's Atlassian Marketplace Feels like an add-on to Azure DevOps rather than a standalone best-in-class PM tool for teams outside Microsoft shops	Limited customization and design properties compared to professional tools like Figma Basic prototyping, animation, and UI-kit depth compared to competitors AI editing regenerates whole screens rather than making targeted changes Free plan's AI credits are limiting for extended use, and free-tier exports are watermarked
	Visit Azure Boards ↗	Visit Visily ↗

Editorial read of this comparison

The table summarizes structured facts; this section explains what the differences mean for a real buying decision.

Where each tool fits, and where it may not

Azure Boards

Azure Boards is Microsoft's cloud-hosted work-tracking service within Azure DevOps Services, combining drag-and-drop sprint planning with flexible work-item tracking and end-to-end traceability from idea to release. It supports Kanban boards, Scrum boards, backlogs, and dashboards, natively linking work items to code changes, builds, and pull requests.

A particularly good fit for: Teams already standardized on Microsoft/Azure/GitHub Enterprise and Entra ID Organizations needing tight code-to-work-item traceability across commits, PRs, and builds Teams wanting Scrum/Kanban work tracking bundled free with CI/CD and Git hosting rather than buying separately

May be a poor fit if: Teams wanting the richest third-party integration and plugin ecosystem, where Jira's Atlassian Marketplace is broader Teams prioritizing a highly polished, modern PM-tool UX over deep Microsoft-stack integration

Visily

Visily is an AI-powered UI design and wireframing tool that lets non-designers (PMs, founders, business analysts, developers) turn text prompts, screenshots, or sketches into editable wireframes and prototypes. It combines a drag-and-drop canvas, AI-assisted design generation, a large template/component library, and real-time team collaboration, positioning itself as a faster, simpler alternative to full design tools like Figma for early-stage concepting.

A particularly good fit for: Non-designers (PMs, founders, business analysts, engineers) visualizing product ideas quickly Early-stage startups and small product teams needing fast concepting before investing in high-fidelity design Teams already using Figma downstream who want a faster front-end for early concepting

May be a poor fit if: Professional UI/UX design teams needing pixel-perfect, highly customizable design systems Teams needing a native mobile app or deep public-API/developer integrations

Pricing and plan structure

Azure Boards: Published starting price Free

Stakeholder (Free)Free
Basic$6 per user/month (first 5 users free)
Basic + Test Plans$52 per user/month

Visily: Published starting price Free

StarterFree
Pro$11 per editor / month, billed annually
Business$29 per editor / month, billed annually
EnterpriseCustom pricing

Capabilities worth validating

Azure Boards: AI features, Public API, Real-time collaboration, Product roadmapping, Templates library Integrations include GitHub, GitHub Enterprise, Microsoft Teams, Slack.
Visily: AI features, Design systems / component libraries, Prototyping, Public API, Real-time collaboration Integrations include Figma, Notion, Slack, Jira.

Questions to answer before switching

Does Azure Boards's selected plan include the features and limits we need?
Does Visily's selected plan include the features and limits we need?
Does the exact integration path for GitHub, GitHub Enterprise, Microsoft Teams support the sync direction, permissions, and volume we need?
Is a hosted-only deployment acceptable for the team and customers who will use this system?

How to evaluate this shortlist

A useful comparison turns the differences between Design & Product tools into a concrete test. Use these steps to avoid choosing from a feature table or the lowest headline price alone.

Start with a representative Design & Product workflow, not a feature checklist. Define who will use it, what data goes in, and what outcome the team needs.
Test the complete path through GitHub, GitHub Enterprise, Microsoft Teams: permissions, sync direction, failure handling, and volume limits often matter more than the integration name.
Compare the cost of the real scenario, including users, usage, storage, support, and contract requirements. The entry price alone does not measure adoption cost.
Before switching, list the evidence gaps, request a demo of the critical workflow, and confirm security, data residency, export, and support with each vendor.

Structured signals help narrow the shortlist, but a trial with a real workflow is still the best way to validate the decision.

Research basis

Last checked: 2026-08-01. Pricing, integrations, feature support, and review signals can change, so treat this as a research snapshot and verify the final decision with the vendor.

Sources consulted: Azure Boards product site, G2, Capterra; Visily product site, G2, Capterra