Atlassian Confluence Reviews

We use Atlassian Confluence for project documentation. It works as a repository of documents. We can write documents, including tutorial information, technical manuals, and other company procedures.

The product has a valuable feature for quick verification of documents.

There could be an option to collaborate with other users while editing the documents. We have to wait for other users to edit and release the document to make further changes or updates.

We have been using Atlassian Confluence for one and a half years.

The product is very stable. I rate its stability a ten out of ten.

We have 125 Atlassian Confluence users in our organization. We use the tool every day. I rate its scalability a seven out of ten. The lack of a collaboration feature affects the scalability level.

I have used SharePoint before.

I rate Atlassian Confluence a six out of ten. I advise others to look for other tools if they want a feature for collaboration.

I use Confluence for project documentation and team collaboration.

With Confluence, everything is in one place, so it's easy to find documentation. This means we don't need to use other tools, like SharePoint.

Confluence's best features are very easy content writing and publishing. It also has good integration with other Atlassian products, Jira in particular.

Some elements of the user interface could be more user-friendly, including embedding diagrams. In the next release, I'd like to see better integration with diagramming tools or software architecture.

I've been using Confluence for a few years.

Confluence is stable and dependable.

Confluence's scalability is good and can handle many parallel users.

Atlassian's technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup was easy and happened in the background.

We used an Atlassian support company for the initial deployment.

Confluence charges an extra fee for analytics.

I would recommend Confluence to other users because it's easy to use and integrates well with other documentation tools. I would give Confluence a rating of eight out of ten.

It is linked with the documentation tools. SourceSafe is very quick and a more stable tool, especially for online multi-usage. Microsoft Project Service is much worse from when I was using it 10 years ago, but I don't have recent experience with it. With Atlassian Confluence, maybe the user interface is poorer, but the use of it is much more dimensional and stable.

I like the documentation. It's a central platform, and there are many things that I can do with it. I'm very pleased about it.

I can put my workspace and tasks under related documentation. I can put it heuristically on the portal, so I can see everything and the comments, and the document, the outputs, and the coding links. I can put down all the photos and see all of the portfolio in one shot, as a summary.

The user interface could be improved.

I have been using Atlassian Confluence for more than 10 years.

My personal experience is related to the R&D process, R&D funding process issues, and R&D funding projects. I'm responsible for project management, program management, or department-related IT consultancy and also software development project teams. For the last 10 years, I have also been responsible for R&D project management and all of the process management of R&D centers, so government and funding organizations' process.

We are just analyzing many programs to enhance our project management tools, agile management and agile projects.

We have been using the JIRA platform recently, and tools for documentation and some custom internal tools that departments have just developed for us.

The solution is stable.

I don't know how scalable it is, but it's enough for 10 or 20 partners of companies to use it online.

In our company, especially with the development teams, we had more than 100 people using the solution.

I used Microsoft Project Server for almost two or three years. It's very hard to concentrate or consolidate the portfolios of resources in different projects. It's very hard to manage. There was too much administration that we had to do, so we stopped using that tool. 

I think Atlassian is better because it includes all the features that a PM or a project team needs.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution to others.

The business analysts use Atlassian Confluence for project documentation and use case stories. I use it primarily for dashboards and KPIs that are set for programs. Most people are comfortable using Atlassian Confluence.

This solution should have customized dashboards that could be built by the user and connect to the data and filtering mechanisms to create dashboards. It will be great for any C-level executive to monitor their KPIs rather than depend on somebody else to create them. So, the dashboards should be improved.

I have been using this solution for about ten years. It is mainly deployed on cloud.

We don't have any issues with stability. We have about 200 users of Atlassian Confluence.

We don't have any experience with technical support.

We have used Zoho, Salesforce, Bamboo and Trello. They almost all work the same because I've seen things done differently. Whether you do project management or documentation, you can choose a solution that's friendly for developers and easy to understand and pick up quickly. I would not say one is better than the other, and each solution has its abilities. Atlassian Confluence seems stable, and we don't have a problem. When dealing with compliance, some of our projects need people and PCI nest compliance, so we also have to look at tools hosted in the manner in which they comply with these standards. IBM products meet some of those requirements.

All things in Atlassian Confluence are set up on cloud. The clients have their administration teams, and they extend an account for our developers, our PAs, and our managers on these platforms. So we don't set up anything. The administration team sets up the Jira accounts on cloud. GitLab and GitHub are set up on-premises while keeping the code version internally. Setup is not a major issue because most of these things are very simple, and you have instructions.

I rate the price an eight out of ten, with ten being a good price and one being a high price. Pricing is not a problem, and you might have other products with lower rates. For bigger companies, price is not a problem because there is always a budget, and the clients fund it. However, if the price gets cheaper, it will be better for users.

I rate this solution a seven 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.

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 were developing an eCommerce platform and wanted to capture all of the metrics that were coming across. We chose Confluent, which is a ready-to-use solution. The use case was to track all of the traffic that was coming from across the globe, and create metrics out of it.

We used the solution for monitoring and alerting. It was purely for internal processes so we could monitor the status of services and see if something was happening, like an order not getting through, or the customer dropping, or a problem within the system itself. The ability to capture those kind of metrics helped the business.

The solution does have tons of features, but sometimes we don't want every feature to be there, we just want a basic solution. They don't offer the option to customize the package, so you get everything with the one bundle price. Maybe we're only using 10% of it, but we have to pay for everything. There needs to be a flexible pricing model, where we can pick and choose services and customize our pricing model.

I used this solution for about a year as an integrator for a previous program.

Overall, we had a good experience with this solution. I'm pretty satisfied because we were able to quickly achieve what we wanted to do.

The scalability of the solution is pretty good. I would rate the scalability as a seven or eight out of nine. 

The solution has good support.

We used open source Kafka or other solutions where you can deploy the open source version in your infrastructure and you don't have to pay anything, but you have to manage the solution by yourself.

The initial setup was straightforward and quick. 

We used CodeFish for deployment. 

The pricing depends on traffic, like how much input and output is happening and how many messages you're handling. For example, you have a bundle package that has a limit. If you go beyond that, there's a different price attached to it, but if you are within that limit, it's a fixed price.

Overall, the solution helped us to see where we were going wrong and where we were doing good, and that helped us to make proper decisions.

Confluent is a very good product, but only if you are using it to the fullest. If you want to use all the features offered by Confluent, there's no competitor for that, but if you're only looking for basic capabilities, then I wouldn't suggest Confluent. MSK has less capability as compared to Confluent, but since we were not using all of the capabilities, MSK is cheaper for me because I just want the basic features.

Confluent is a classic product. There's no doubt that they're leading the market and their offerings are excellent. I would rate them as a nine out of ten.

It's the knowledge base for our company.

We have project spaces for our customer projects, and the project teams share information about the projects.

We also use it as a wiki for our company.

As for valuable features, the team management features help us to share information very easily.

Also, you can work with multiple people on one document inside the solution.

The scalability for larger companies could be improved.

Atlassian has decided to stop the server edition of Atlassian Confluence. In the future, you can only buy an enterprise installation called Data Center, and you have to pay for a thousand users on up. This means that it will be very expensive. So, small installations will only have the cloud option, but the cloud version of Atlassian Confluence is not as stable as the on-premises version.

It would be good to have more graphical components on dashboards to show table components as graphics, pie charts or bar charts. These are not included at the moment.

I've been using it for the last five years.

The stability of the on-premises version is really good.

The scalability is not so good, but it's enough for us because our company is small. We have 30 users. However, we have customers who have 10,000 people on Confluence, and then it becomes a problem.

I would rate technical support at three on a scale from one to five.

We chose Atlassian Confluence because it is really easy to set up the system and because of the functionality. The system has many good functions, and the UI is really modern and easy to use.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Less than one full-time employee is needed for the maintenance of this solution.

Pricing wise, it ends up being an expensive solution. In the beginning it's cheap, but by the time you have all the functions you need, it turns out to be expensive.

Use the 30 day test period to be sure that you want the system. You should use it and test it during this time and then decide.

At the moment, Atlassian Confluence is the best team product you can buy, and I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.