Atlassian Confluence Reviews

The sharing of information and simple formatting are valuable features. That is, there are no templates, and everything uses one format. This means that people don't need to worry about formatting.

When we have a project that we don't want to share with everybody but want people to know that it exists, there is no way to do this in Confluence. When a project is not shared, people cannot see that it exits.

I've been working with Confluence for eight years. It was initially on-premises, but we moved to the cloud four years ago.

It's stable, and we haven't had any issues at all.

We haven't had any problems with scalability. We have about 300 users.

Some technical support staff are very helpful, but some just send documentation that is not very helpful. I would say that technical support needs improvement.

I didn't do the initial setup, but I think it's pretty easy. When I had to configure a new site, it was very easy.

SharePoint is very confusing, but Atlassian Confluence is very simple. After a couple of days, most people understand how it works, and it's quite simple.

I recommend Confluence to any company that wants to share information inside the company. Confluence is great; it's like a wiki. I would give it an eight out of ten.

It is a collaboration tool. All of our company documentation is on Confluence.

I am using its latest version. It is a cloud solution. Atlassian is the cloud provider.

It is very useful for companies that want to deploy their documents in a private cloud repository. Companies don't need to store their documents on some servers on their premises. This document collaboration platform makes it flexible to reach your documents at any time. There is no time or location limitation. You can reach your documents whenever you want and wherever you want. For that reason, it is a very useful tool.

Collaboration is most valuable. You can upload or create your documents on Confluence and share them with your team members. Your team members also can share documents. 

Confluence can integrate with draw.io and some of the other third-party tools as well. For that reason, it is joyful to use.

It has good integrations, but its integration capabilities can be improved.

They can improve the table feature of Confluence. It is currently not adequate.

I have been using this solution for three months.

It is a stable solution.

It can be used by as many team members as you want to collaborate. It is no problem.

You don't need any technical support. It is easy to use.

It is just for document collaboration. There is no deployment period. You are just creating your documents on Confluence.

I am using the paid version. My company has purchased it for company employees. We are using Confluence as a company. I don't know how much it costs, but its price is good enough. Its price is not so high.

It is a collaboration tool for document development. You can create, improve, and share your documents through Confluence. It is quite an efficient tool to collaborate with your team members. I would strongly recommend it. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

Our different business units use it for different purposes. We have analysts, developers, DevOps team members, project managers and product managers using it. All these roles use it for artifacts for the jobs they need to do. 

The best feature is the automatic tagging of information in documents. The automatic algorithm highlights irrelevant information that conflict with the actual documents.

You can add different tables and text and format it for different purposes. The integration with JIRA and other tools is quite useful. The different plugins for different purposes are also great. 

The flexibility and simplicity of this solution could be improved. We would also like the ability to add plugins. 

I have used this solution for eight years.

This is a stable solution. We have not experienced any cases of instability.

You need extra time and money to make it useful for a large number of people.

The initial setup is rather straightforward. 

If you are looking for a simple solution to generate documents and artifacts in one place and a simple tool for rules of privacy of this information, I would recommend Confluence. 

If you have a large number of employees or complex processes, you need to have extra time and money to develop tools for Confluence. It doesn't have a pre-built solution for difficult cases for cross functional teams and connections of subjects.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. Confluence is a good collaborative tool for work with artifacts of documents, but it has room for improvement. That's why I would rate it a seven and not eight or nine.

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.