Atlassian Confluence Reviews

The most valuable features of Atlassian Confluence are version management and search and linkage to the JIRA tickets. They are integrated very well together. You can have links from many places and can easily jump from one to the other. If you want to find all the information about a topic, you only need to click and you receive the information.

From what I have used of the user interface it is good.

I have been using Atlassian Confluence for approximately a couple of months.

Atlassian Confluence could improve the stability, there are timeouts sometimes.

Atlassian Confluence is scalable.

We have a local vendor that I use for support if I need it.

We used the vendor to implement Atlassian Confluence.

Atlassian Confluence is a good solution, I am not sure of the price but if it is expensive it is worth it. You pay for quality.

I rate Atlassian Confluence a nine out of ten.

We use Confluence to share weekly project information. Everyone in the company uses it daily from project managers down. 

It's easy to search for information.

I'd like to see some improved reporting on usage. 

We have been using Confluence for more than five years.

Confluence is stable. 

Confluence is scalable. Our company has 1,000 employees, and we're growing. It has kept pace with our growth. 

I rate Confluence eight out of 10. I won't rate it nine because my company didn't develop it. If my company had developed it, it would be much better. 

We are using a lot of Confluence. While we are gathering the requirements from the business for the development, Confluence is used. We are creating project charters there. It covers all the functional requirements including knowledge sharing sessions. Basically, when somebody's leaving or somebody is being hired, everything related to that goes on Confluence. This also includes information, for example, about annual leave information, et cetera. If a person is hired and we need to prepare a KT plan for that. So we prepare a page in Confluence.

We like that it is a complete knowledge base where anyone can go and search for various types of information. Different departments are using it. If I want to search for any information, instead of pulling it from files, we have just added everything on Confluence, which makes it easily searchable.

It's easy to use and you can create all types of pages. 

There are lots of functionalities. You can see statues, who is signed in or not, et cetera. 

When we import the data in Confluence from Word or any other document, the formatting is not correct. When we export the data, more or less, it is fine. Let's say from Confluence to Word or Confluence to PDF, it's okay. Otherwise, we face formatting issues.  

The solution would offer more importing features. 

We have used the solution for 15 years or so.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is great. If your workload grows, it can easily match it. 

We have 700 to 800 people using the solution right now in our organization. HR, production managers, and more are typically on the solution. Pretty much everyone uses it. 

I haven't had any interactions with technical support. I can't speak to how they are in terms of responsiveness.

My understanding is that the pricing is competitive. I'm not directly involved in the pricing and how it was done. That said, the fact that we have been using it for the last 15 years makes me assume it would be fine for our pocket and reasonably priced. I'd rate the pricing at a three out of five in terms of value for money.

Confluence basically is not a management software. It is just a knowledge base. You can search for whatever is there. You cannot manage a project using Confluence. For that, you would need Jira, not Confluence. 

I would recommend the product. Currently, most companies are using Word documents for creating all requirements. Probably they'll be putting those in, either on SharePoint or somewhere. However, these need to be preserved for the future. This solution helps with that.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for documentation. We used to maintain other documents in another location, but we moved to Confluence. We use it for the design documentation perspective, not for the analytics perspective. 

The most valuable feature is its design documentation abilities. 

Some aspects of the drawing perspective could be improved. When we upgrade a design and make technical architecture drawings to publish, we still use Visio first and then copy and paste it. If this feature were available on Confluence, it would be a useful tool. 

I have been using this solution for more than two years. 

This solution is stable and well-integrated with Jira. 

This solution is scalable. 

I have never directly contacted Atlassian technical support. 

I use SharePoint as well, mainly for the version control because I still need to prepare the document in Word and Visio and then load it to SharePoint. 

The initial setup, the installation, was managed by someone else. 

I implemented through an in-house team of three developers and engineers. They maintain both Confluence and Jira. 

I believe we have the Enterprise license with Confluence. 

I recommend Confluence to others. There are about 400 people in my company using this solution. However, if you are doing extensive drawings or looking for the version-control perspective, then I would caution you and suggest looking at another solution. 

I would rate Confluence a seven out of ten. 

We mainly used Jira for backlog management within IT development landscapes. We used Confluence for early-stage documentation and communication within and across teams.

Since we worked mostly with large enterprises, they typically install and host any server-based solutions on their own.

The interesting thing is the connector between Jira and Confluence (it works wiki-like and provides a deep-connection with links between both systems). The alternative is to run for early-stage backlog-items in immature state a separate wiki-instance that would not feature the proper linkage of backlog-entries automatically.

With respect to Confluence, it would be interesting if they had graphical templates that allowed typical agile ceremonies to be documented better. For example, one of the agile cadences that we regularly run is risk roaming. Confluence, as of now, doesn't provide any kind of graphical support for creating a two-by-two portfolio matrix design or even something similar. Basically, Confluence is heavily text-based. Some of my customers have actually started to tweak the system a bit and implement workarounds. On the screen, you can make it look as if it is a two-by-two portfolio; however, if there were templates provided, that would be great. The basic graphical templates that are used regularly in management would be fine. It would be great to see them supported in the future. 

In regards to Jira, it would be nice if they had two-dimensional features for backlog support. At the moment, backlog management is always a flat, one-dimensional list but our customers actually prefer having the opportunity to have that read out in a graphical fashion as well. That way, there's so much more overview and they can cluster smaller backlog items that come as a bunch. It just provides much more clarity.

Jira still seems to have issues on modelling Kanban-systems - as far as I know it still doesn't support the so-called "commitment point" (i.e. creating a non-romovable time-stamp when moving a ticket onto a board) helpful in creating transparency about start- and end-time of performing an activity — similar to signing a document in writing.

Think of it this way: if you take an item into a boardroom, it must be noted and signed. It should be done in pencil where the data could be erased later on, rather, it should be stamped — basically, you are not losing the data again. That is still an issue with these systems. That's one of the reasons why many teams who want to run Kanban methodology don't want to use Jira. They tend to use other software, which is able to do these sorts of things. 

Until 2018, I was employed with an applier of Atlassian solutions. Within that context, I used Confluence for a year. I have used Jira 2012—2018 as an end-user myself. From then onwards, I was more of a consultant to other companies implementing and using similar solutions. In short, if you count only end-usage, then it's 6 years with Jira and one year with Confluence.

With respect to our experiences with Confluence, we haven't had any issues; however, we definitely have had issues within the Jira environment back in 2014.

Scalability issues should have been fixed by now - they arose back in 2010-2014 at one of the largest enterprise implementations for multi-1.000s of concurrent users on the system, causing the system to operate very slow - I would expect that by 2020 this is treated accordingly to make the system scale without loss of performance. 

I have not personally contacted Atlassian's technical support. It was always routed via the respective IT staff, which I was not involved with.

I was not involved with technical administration or the implementation procedure from an IT infrastructure team perspective. For this reason, I can't speak for individual customers.

The problem with the pricing model is not so much the price for the Atlassian basic software itself; the issues I have with the pricing are in respect to the add-ons. The problem with add-on pricing is that it typically is always calculated based on the amount of basic Confluence or Jira licenses. Since some of the add-ons will only get used by a very limited number of users, having to pay for the full implementation (for all the people using Confluence or Jira), seems like an unfair pricing model. It also prohibits the usage of certain add-ons, too. Certain add-ons from a functionality-perspective are much more exclusive to only a few users. That pricing model should be reviewed and potentially edited or amended to make it more flexible.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. If they added the graphical templates, I would give them a higher rating.

To me, as an end-user, the topical templates are pretty basic. Under the current conditions, since COVID-19, our teams have tried to become more virtual in their collaboration model. The collaboration model that we had installed before, face-to-face, couldn't be transferred, which is kind of a pity because the graphical features are missing.

In multiple organizations, we have been using Atlassian Confluence as a knowledge base, and for development. Our developers use it alongside Jira.

What I like the most is the Wiki software that comes with Atlassian Confluence.

The interface is good and it's pretty easy to use. Most developers have some experience with Jira, which makes it pretty easy for people to pick up. We don't usually need to provide them a string.

They can easily take on some of the features from Slack. 

They could try and copy Slack more and bring them into the market a bit quicker. That would be helpful for them.

I would like to see integration with Slack.

There could be improvements with the app ecosystem. For example, if we look at Teams, there is now an entire ecosystem. With Teams, you can essentially install any apps and do any integrations. Third-party, similar to Microsoft.

It's more about integrations with third parties. That is also something that could be better.

I think it can be more competitive, considering the competition they are now going to get from Slack and Teams. For example, if you look at Microsoft Teams, Microsoft is providing 365 for free with Slack.

I have been using this solution for approximately seven years.

We have not had any issues.

We have 1100 users.

The customer support is pretty good. If you reach out to them, they are very helpful.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, I have never had any issues.

When you purchase this solution you get some support.

Jira and Confluence go hand in hand. If it's for development, and if people have money to pay for one product only, they usually end up purchasing Jira, and not Confluence. 

But at the end of the day, it's an ecosystem. It really depends on how much you want to integrate and how much you want to dive into it.

It really depends on what ecosystem they invest in and what they're looking for.

You have to look at the use case and if you already have an application in your ecosystem which is fit for purpose, you have to ask yourself, why you want to go out and pay for another product?

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Every project and every initiative we start gets a Confluence site to track artifacts that are created related to that initiative. For example, we will use it for a knowledge base and for general documentation. We collect all of our meeting minutes, action lists, and so on. It is grouped in scenarios for reference, et cetera.  

I think it is easy to use. There are a large number of out-of-the-box templates, which can satisfy the majority of use cases. If those templates do not quite cover what you want them to do, you can tweak the templates so you can create your own just so you end up with standardized content look and feel. It integrates well with the other Atlassian products, like the Jira software, which we use for our software development teams.  

Overall I am pretty satisfied with it. We like the user interface and it is similar to the Jira software as well which makes it very familiar.  

Workflows is an area where it could be improved. Out-of-the-box, it does not have a good workflow solution, which is a bit odd given that there is a good workforce solution in Jira software. We had to purchase a workflow management tool off the marketplace called Kamala and that probably should not have been necessary. So, they could probably do with a bit of development on the workflows front to include a better solution out-of-the-box, but other than that, not a lot needs to be improved.  

Personally, I have been using Confluence since around 2013. About seven years.  

Confluence does not have any bugs, glitches that I can recall.  

The scalability is pretty good.  

The installation and setup for Confluence itself is relatively straightforward. There is good online documentation for it as well. The templates help make easy work of the design and site creation.  

I would recommend Confluence, especially for anyone that is using other Atlassian products. It is a simple, additional, license to get the solution and it integrates really well with the other products in the Atlassian family.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate Confluence overall as a product as an eight-out-of-ten. I would not rate it higher because like all the Atlassian products, there are certain things I think the product should have out-of-the-box without you needing to go to the marketplace. For example, it does not have an approvals type of workflow. If you want to create content and have other people review and approve it before it gets published that should be available. I would think that is something that it should have out-of-the-box.  

I use the solution in my company for documentation purposes. Most of our company's release notes are present on Atlassian Confluence for client review and for the processes we use in our organization. All the details about the new features of the upcoming releases and all the stuff related to the company policies, like employee engagement and everything else that should be documented, are present in Atlassian Confluence. I use Atlassian Confluence for document-controlling purposes.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from its document-controlling feature. In Atlassian Confluence, controlled documents cannot be edited by anyone else.

I would say that Atlassian Confluence's old versions consume too much memory, making it an area where optimization is required from an improvement perspective.

There are some issues with the templates in Atlassian Confluence. In our company, when some team members try to edit the templates in the product, they get stuck. There were complaints about the templates being less refined. When the components increase in the template, the product's users in our company get stuck, making it in an area where improvements are required.

It would be great if Atlassian Confluence could integrate with Microsoft Teams since it would allow our company to use just one tool instead of two.

The quality of the technical support needs improvement.

I have been using Atlassian Confluence since 2020. I am a user of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution as eight out of ten due to the high memory consumption of the product, specifically its IaaS and not the SaaS version.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The tool is suitable for all types of companies. Many enterprise-level companies use Atlassian Confluence because they have lengthy processes that run for years. The aforementioned area prompts enterprises to choose Atlassian Confluence for their documentation.

Even though my company is able to open tickets with the tool's support team, we haven't gotten all of our issues resolved. I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

With Atlassian Confluence, there are two types of setup processes available. My company uses the on-premises version of the product. My company also uses its own infrastructure to host Atlassian Confluence. Our company also uses the SaaS version of the product. In general, both versions of the product are being used for different projects. I think the SaaS version of the product does great in terms of memory and everything. The on-premises version of the product is a bit old but is more secure and preferred by our clients since they feel that their documents are safe in an on-premises setup.

In terms of the tool's ability to ensure better productivity of the team in our company, I would say that the old versions of Atlassian Confluence consume too much memory while also using Java libraries.

I don't think that the product ensures better communication between my team members.

It is secure to share documents through Atlassian Confluence. Documents shared via Atlassian Confluence cannot be edited or modified until and unless they are reviewed by the specific person for whom they are meant.

Though not to a large extent, my company has used Atlassian Confluence's integration capabilities. In our company, there were a few products for which we had to review the links with the clients and review the documentation, which was not much. I think Atlassian Confluence has much more to offer, but my company hasn't explored it that much.

If I consider large volumes of pages and space, I would say that the tool works fine with large virtual volumes of pages and spaces, but not all the time.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.