Atlassian Confluence Reviews

I manage the solution in my organization.

I have used the solution both on-premises and on cloud. Using the solution on-premises is easier than using the cloud version. The cloud version is a different product. The on-premises version has more features.

There were 1,500 people using Confluence at my previous company.

The trial stages, the ability to connect it to Jira, and the ability to export in PDF are all good capabilities.

I would like Confluence to include the ability to draw flowcharts and diagrams.
There's a small tool that you can use to draw, but it was very cumbersome. When you have to import or paste the pictures, you have to get that information into the table columns. When you're merging or unmerging, the table can break. Copy and paste on Excel doesn't work easily because Excel is the primary tool that most people use.

Excel is very easy to use. Confluence has issues with usability. It's slightly cumbersome. If they made it more usable with Excel and drawings, it would be a much more powerful tool.

I worked with Confluence for three years.

I would rate the stability as eight out of ten. We didn't have many issues with stability.

The scalability is fine on-premises. We had some issues with the scalability on the cloud.

We had an internal IT team for support.

We mainly use SharePoint to store documents. We use Confluence as a document creator and storage tool.

Setup is pretty simple. We did the basic setup. When we created a project, we could give access to people and start creating a trial page, parent page, etc.

I would rate Confluence as seven out of ten. 

My advice is go for more features so that the templates can be used. The base version of cloud isn't that usable. There are huge differences between the two.

We use Atlassian Confluence for internal communication and documentation for protocols. You can also use the solution for knowledge management and document management because it allows attachments and some descriptions.

Atlassian Confluence is flexible and allows adding different types of context on the page and connecting a hypertext, like a web page, without a source.

Atlassian Confluence is not really a community-friendly solution. If you have a company, you'll have a license for each person, but it does not have such features as commenters. For example, Jira Service Desk has licensed agents and customers who are public and not licensed. Atlassian Confluence has no public type of users who can comment or do any activity without a license.

I have been using Atlassian Confluence for more than ten years.

I rate Atlassian Confluence a nine out of ten for stability.

Around 12 clients are using Atlassian Confluence.

I rate Atlassian Confluence ten out of ten for scalability.

Depending on the system, the solution's initial setup could be easy or complicated. I rate Atlassian Confluence around eight to ten out of ten for the ease of its initial setup.

Atlassian Confluence can be deployed on the public cloud, on-premises, personal servers, and in any infrastructure.

Overall, I rate Atlassian Confluence a nine out of ten.

I'm working on a project in a Standards organization that's using Atlassian Confluence as a tool for collaboration.

The organization integrates Atlassian Confluence with another Atlassian product called Jira for the concurrent development of documentation for the project. Jira is used to raise issues you implement and trace back to Atlassian Confluence for collaborative development.

My organization primarily uses Atlassian Confluence for the collaborative development of projects. The organization has plenty of projects in development, and there's a space in Atlassian Confluence for sharing documentation, raising issues, producing documentation directly on the tool, and exporting documents using some filters my organization developed because the final document is in Word format.

What's most valuable to me in Atlassian Confluence is that it allows the concurrent development of documentation. I also like how you can add comments offline and implement changes directly on the document. Atlassian Confluence is a very nice platform for my purposes. It's a good tool.

An area for improvement in Atlassian Confluence is encouraging more vital interaction among the project members or users involved. I was researching a tool, but I forgot the exact name of the tool, and that tool could be used for better interactions offline among users on a specific topic, development, or discussion. I want that feature to be present in Atlassian Confluence. If there's a possibility to integrate Atlassian Confluence, Jira, and that other tool, that will make Atlassian Confluence better.

My team had problems accessing Atlassian Confluence a couple of times, but I wonder if that was due to a network, server, or tool issue. I have to say that I've been working with Atlassian Confluence for years, and it has been improving its functionalities, so I feel that as a tool, it's working very well, but some features could still be improved.

For example, the search engine should allow you to define some keywords you could use when searching, though I wonder if it's staff-related or setup-related, or lacking in the search engine function itself.

I also want artificial intelligence added to Atlassian Confluence where you're working on a specific issue or argument, and Atlassian Confluence, through its AI, can propose some improvements based on what has been done on the same topic by different teams or different projects within the same infrastructure, similar to an internal reference, which can be helpful. Through AI, it would also be great if Atlassian Confluence could advise you on what has been done outside your specific project, and maybe there's the possibility of an installation where you have several projects installed and working together.

Another feature that would be good to have in the next release of Atlassian Confluence is the tool recognizing a keyword or two that's fully developed in project B, which you can use in project A, for example.

I've been using Atlassian Confluence for many years, though I don't remember exactly when I started. I've been using Jira far longer, even in my previous organization, then I moved to my current organization, which uses Atlassian Confluence integrated with Jira.

Atlassian Confluence is a stable tool.

The initial setup for Atlassian Confluence isn't easy. It would be best if you had some time to understand how to approach the tool entirely, but it doesn't take up so much time. Atlassian Confluence has many features, which is why it's normal if it's a little bit complex, though Jira is even more complex.

Atlassian Confluence is similar to Jira because it takes more than five minutes to create dashboards and tickets, for example. It also takes time to involve the team and understand Atlassian Confluence and its functionalities. Though the tool is flexible enough to start using it without complete knowledge, the more you use it and get more involved with it, the better you can understand Atlassian Confluence and use all features it provides better.

I'm not aware of how long it took for the tool to be implemented because it was handled by a different team, though I believe the team in charge customized Atlassian Confluence with the help of some experts or third parties.

An in-house team implemented Atlassian Confluence with the help of third-party experts.

To my knowledge, Atlassian Confluence had a pricing approach which is a commercial open-source solution, so that if you are a company, you had to pay an amount. This fee was not huge compared to other traditional solutions, and it was free for personal use or if you were an individual. I'm unsure if Atlassian is implementing the same pricing approach for Atlassian Confluence nowadays.

I evaluated Microsoft Teams in my previous organization, but I found Atlassian Confluence far more flexible and useful than Microsoft Teams. There is no space for comparing Microsoft Teams and Atlassian Confluence because Atlassian Confluence is undoubtedly more effective and efficient, in my opinion.

I remember that I'm using the latest version of Atlassian Confluence.

To my knowledge, maintenance of Atlassian Confluence is handled internally, and the organization also pays a team from Atlassian to do maintenance.

Thousands of people use Atlassian Confluence, but I cannot give the exact number because my organization has thirty to forty projects developed concurrently, with at least ten to twelve people periodically working on it, then some active and not-so-active people using Atlassian Confluence. Thousands of people use Atlassian Confluence, particularly for the write mode, document production, etc.

My advice to people who want to implement the tool is not to renounce it if they find difficulties initially because you can start using it from scratch with the basic functionalities. Then, when you discover other functionalities within Atlassian Confluence that can be useful, you can explore those at best.

I'm still determining exactly how much customization my organization has done in the tool and if that's relevant. I'm uncertain if it's different if your tool has the standard features versus the highly customized version of Atlassian Confluence. 

Still, it's undoubtedly a good tool for collaboration, including remote collaboration. I can work with people in China and the States without any problem, and you can quickly identify any changes you or other users make. This is precisely why Atlassian Confluence is recommended for remote collaboration.

My rating for Atlassian Confluence is eight out of ten.

My organization is a user of Atlassian Confluence.

Confluence is an important tool for collaboration.

We can implement macros in documents. It is useful for document development. We can collaborate with others. The user management and role-based access management depend on Jira. All Atlassian products rely on Jira on-premise. We can also delete the number of users who can access our documents. Document collaboration is the most valuable aspect of the solution.

Indentation and other basic word processing styles must be improved. However, it is limited to editing HTML.

The tool is stable.

The tool can be deployed on-premise or in the cloud. The setup is straightforward. We have to follow several steps for Linux, but the setup for Windows is quite basic.

I did the deployment myself.

I strongly recommend the product. There is no need for scalability. The product’s collaboration features are very strong. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I use it for documentation, project reports, and creating a knowledge base. 

It's used for building a knowledge base and providing status updates on tasks.

I don't see many features in the version we use. We do find the ability to build workflow diagrams helpful, but that might be through external modules/plugins.

The diagram tool is a positive addition.

However, the only integration we use is with Jira.

There is room for improvement in maybe the tree structure for articles. If you have a lot of articles, it becomes difficult to navigate. 

Having the ability to control which articles appear in the main tree structure and only linking or hyperlinking to others within specific articles could be an improvement.

I have been using this solution for ten years. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It seems highly scalable. There are 500 end users using this solution. 

We have IT, service desk agents, and regular users across different functions. Everyone is using it. For example, if someone needs to look up documentation or assistance with workflows, they would use Confluence.

It's used alongside Jira. Each team would likely have a Jira code for that purpose.

I've used ClickUp. It's a good tool, especially compared to Jira. Confluence still has room to improve in comparison. We also used a legacy tool called CBQ.

ClickUp is becoming a real competitor to Jira and Confluence because it's an all-in-one tool. You don't need separate licenses for project management and knowledge bases. ClickUp has a more seamless experience.  

I've heard of Asana, but I personally prefer ClickUp. If I were starting a company from scratch, I would consider ClickUp over Jira, Confluence, Trello, etc. It's really user-friendly.

I would recommend using this solution. It's not necessarily better than tools like Asana, but it gets the job done.

Jira and Confluence have strong market presence, and migrating existing systems can be a challenge. 

For new projects, I would certainly recommend considering other options. For established teams, switching tools might not be practical. But if you're starting fresh, explore alternatives and don't just default to Jira and Confluence.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We use it to manage different documentation such as PDFs and PowerPoint. It's similar to Dropbox but is more organized. We have approximately 1,000 users that make use of this solution in our business. 

The customization that Confluence offers is one of its most useful features. You can customise it based on the specific project you are working on. It also supports multiple languages. 

I also like using the web browser version of this solution and the fact that it is easy to search. You are able to see more that ten rows of results. 

We currently only use this solution for retrieving information. In a previous company, I also used it for HR and onboarding. The one way in which this solution could be improved is by offering better design and UI.

I have been using this solution for five years. 

This is a stable solution. I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability. 

This is a scalable solution. It is built on a crop base and so adding additional documents is simple. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

This is a very expensive solution. 

We compared this solution with Lark and I think Lark is a better option. When using Confluence, you can only search using a search bar. When using Lark, you can search through a messaging bot and everything is translated. For example, Chinese words can be translated into English without requiring AI. 

I would rate this solution a six out of ten. It is one of the most well known solutions but comes at a high price and does not offer the best functionality. 

The company needed a tool that project managers put their plans, documentation, and everything related to project management into, including milestones that are not available on Jira. They have to use both this and Jira in order to give a full report to management.

When you're working with Agile, you can't go through from one sprint to another without having a good burndown chart. 

I love the reports and the Confluence board. 

The search functionality is great. 

For me, the initial setup is easy. 

The solution is scalable.

It's a stable product. 

I have a problem with the burndown chart, for example, if I put a time only on the estimation block, it'll not show on the burndown chart. It has to be the points.

I'd like to see better reporting.

The UX is a little bit all over the place. From my experience, people really find it very hard to cope with Jira when they start using that.

The setup could be streamlined further. 

I've used the solution for about 12 years. 

The stability is great. There are no bugs or glitches. 

The product scales well. 

We started at 100 users and have since scaled to 300 users. We will continue to increase usage. 

We previously used a local tool. We needed something better for handling project management. 

The implementation process is easy for me. People sometimes find it easy and yet there is room for improvement in the process. 

We advised a third party on how our workflows needed to be implemented and they implemented them on the cloud. Then they moved the project to our cloud and set it as a base for everything there. It was actually really smooth. It didn't take too much time.

The full implementation strategy took two months. 

There was a little bit of complication from the bank side. We have a lot of security, unblocked IPS, et cetera. The two months weren't the full implementation time. We had areas that were blocked due to our security control. A couple of times we remained blocked for one week. I want to say the ideal time for the implementation was one month and a week. For us, of course, it took longer. 

We had five people in total ding the deployment. There were three from our side and two from the third party. 

I'd rate the entire process a three out of five in terms of the ease of implementation. 

We have a contract for handling maintenance. The vendor partners are handling it. 

A third-party handled the implementation process. 

I can't speak to the exact cost of the solution. 

We are users and work directly with a vendor partner. 

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I love Confluence. I'd recommend it to other users. People should try it out. It would be very helpful. 

We use it for our knowledge base and also for internal blogging.

The templates are a valuable feature. You can make templates. There is a space inside where you can create pages. When you use the template, the page auto-generates text and images. You do not have to think about the structure of your page as well, which I think is a very good thing for a user. Because usually when you're in front of a blank page, it can be a bit dreadful to know where to start.

Some macros can be technical, and they are better managed on the Confluence cloud rather than on-premises. For example, when you add an image on the cloud, you can resize it just by using the mouse. This is not the case on-premises yet. You have to write pixels of the size of the image sometimes.

Some of the very old macros are still there, and some of them are technical. It can be hard for users if they are not from an IT background to understand how to use them quickly.

There's a feature that is really helpful that I like, but it is inside the cloud version and not in the on-premises version. It is the inline comment in edit mode. In fact, you can do inline comments on articles and pages on both the cloud and on-premises versions, but when you modify the page on the cloud, you can still see them but in edit mode. When you edit the page, you cannot see them anymore. You need to have two tabs in order to remember what the comments were.

I've been using it for four years.

Stability wise, Confluence is a reliable tool, and as a wiki, it's a good tool. So, there are no known performance issues.

With regard to Confluence on-premises, the performance would obviously depend on the infrastructure and the hardware behind the installation. So, it won't really be linked to the tool.

On the cloud side, the stability is okay as well.

Confluence is scalable on both the cloud and server data center. On the cloud, you can even go up to 10,000 users, which was not the case three or four years ago.

We have nearly 300 users. We do our assignment reports on it, and some use it in sales. Managed services staff use it to share information with clients. It is used by everyone.

The installation is easy, and there's nothing more to do after the installation. It can be ready to use very quickly.

Deployment would probably take a day or two at the most. However, if the client needs advice regarding the structure of the company and how to do the knowledge base, then it can take several days. Usually, this is up to the organization, but as it's really quick to use, you can create whatever you want the day after the installation.

There are some cases where you can go on Confluence as a public site without a license, but you will not have all of the features. You can also have a Confluence site that does not require a license just to read the articles.

When you have Jira Service Management attached to Confluence, then you can go through the portal of Jira Service Management and read the Confluence articles without the license. This is good because when you are in an ITSM environment, you have many customers, and you do not want them to have to pay just to read articles.

Regarding the use of the full features of Confluence, there is a license cost, and it depends on how many users you want.

You should use Atlassian Confluence, but you should not expect it to behave like a document manager. People do ask me what the advantage of Confluence is compared to that of SharePoint, but in fact, this is not the same use case. SharePoint is for storing documents at a place, and Confluence is a wiki.

I would recommend that you go for it but you will need to remember that it's a wiki and is not designed to store documents. It can store documents, but only up to a certain size. Also, it's not meant to be used to store documents.

If you are looking to deploy your organization or your projects inside Confluence, do think about the right structure because it will influence the way your people use it. Think about how to deploy the structure of your projects or your documents inside the Confluence, and do not expect it to be a document manager.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Atlassian Confluence an eight because it's a great tool. It's a great wiki and is easy to use. It's easy to understand how to use it as well, particularly if you are from an IT background. Someone who is not from an IT background might need some help in the beginning on how to use it. The setup is really easy, and you do not need specific skills to deploy it. However, the comment feature and macros need improvement. It would be nice to have more templates in the future.