Atlassian Confluence Reviews

We are using Atlassian Confluence as a repository for files.

The most valuable feature of Atlassian Confluence is the ability to access your files from anywhere.

Atlassian Confluence should improve the interface, it needs to be more user-friendly. It is easy to use, but it could be more intuitive.

I have been using Atlassian Confluence for six months.

Atlassian Confluence is stable.

I have found Atlassian Confluence to be scalable.

We had approximately 25 people using this solution in my organization.

I have not used the support from Atlassian Confluence.

Atlassian Confluence was relatively simple to set up. The time it took was only a few minutes.

My advice to others before using this solution is to look at some tutorials or do a quick workshop to understand how the platform works. They can use a Google search and YouTube to find information.

I rate Atlassian Confluence a six out of ten.

We have a standalone, server-based version. Confluence is installed onsite. Nowadays, they don't provide any standalone versions anymore. They just provide the cloud versions for subscription.

Confluence is easy to use and integrate with other solutions, including social media platforms. 

Managing user permissions and credentials could be easier. 

I've been using Confluence for about five or six years.

Confluence has average stability. 

Confluence's scalability is okay, but you have some performance problems when you're working with too many people. 

We have many engineers, so we don't need to contact Atlassian support. 

Deploying Confluence is complex. It requires deploying many other libraries. We don't pay for maintenance anymore. We just maintain the solution ourselves. 

We buy the solutions through the internet and install them ourselves.

They provide both subscription models, but I don't manage the licensing for our company, so I don't know what it costs. 

I rate Atlassian Confluence seven out of 10. I think the on-premise solution we have isn't good for novices. If you don't have a lot of experience, you should try the cloud solution. 

My team uses this solution for documentation and collaboration.

The solution is very intuitive and provides excellent content management.

You can easily switch between tools through hyperlinks. It is also well integrated with Jira.

In the next release, I would like to have the ability to import pictures.

I have been using this solution for about six months.

The solution is scalable, we currently have about two hundred users who are senior employees within our IT department.

There is an annual license.

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.

I used Confluence mostly for the wiki and documentation.

The most valuable features are the ease of creating documentation, as well as charts.

Space maintenance could be made a little more user-friendly.

I have been working with Atlassian Confluence for at least six years.

There are no bugs or glitches that I'm aware of.

This product is scalable.

Atlassian technical support is pretty good.

I am currently using the cloud version, but previously, I used to use the on-premises deployment model.

The initial setup was easy, and not complex at all.

We have an in-house team to take of maintenance.

Confluence is a good product and I recommend it. My only complaint is that certain things, such as space management, can be made easier.

I would rate this solution a nine 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.  

We primarily use it as a knowledge management tool for all of our consultants, which are architects.

The whole solution is really great. I appreciate the ability to create content, link content, and then search for that content when I need to. 

I love all of the add-ons the solution offers. You get the base product, and then you can plug in a ton of third-party apps. There's a whole ecosystem of third-party products you can add in if there are any features that may be missing on Confluence itself. That's really great. 

There are very good notifications and links. You can subscribe to a page, and whenever that page gets edited, you're notified of a change on that page.

I suppose just the whole structure and organization is what I really like about Confluence. You have at least 500 odd pages. The way it's structured, again, to speed up the ability to find stuff, is phenomenal. 

The self-service capabilities are helpful. Anyone can create content. We do, in fact. It's not one person running lots and lots of pages of content, it's everyone. You can self-service, update, and change things yourself, which is good. It's a great collaboration endeavor. We are a team of 15 people and we'll leverage the content we've created previously. The ability to collaborate on the content is quite critical to us.

The integration's very good. You still have integration with lots of third party products, and it's very good. 

We've used a lot of time in correcting our knowledge in this product. Can't really think of a negative feature of the product.

This is kind of by design, however, the lack of control in terms of editing the page to make it look the way you want it to look is an issue. It would be nice if there was more flexibility there.

It's only a very constrained format you can use. You cannot change the font and you can't really make them smaller. It is by design, but it doesn't like people playing with those aspects. It's probably gone a bit too far. The inability to format the layout of a page is an issue for us.

The logic for searching for pages is a bit off. I assumed it would be very smart in terms of looking at the content on your page and looking at what people clicked on. I assumed it would be like Google in that it would know what people clicked on previously when they were looking for this keyword, what page do they click on, et cetera. It doesn't. I found some detailed explanation of exactly how the search works and it's quite disappointing. It's very basic. Search largely depends on the title of your actual document. It doesn't look at the words in the document, and doesn't look at the search history, in terms of how people pick pages.

It turns out that the searching algorithms are very basic. When I assumed the product was bad, it was actually due to the fact that most of the knowledge management tools have very smart searching logic. This one doesn't. 

I've been using the solution for probably less than a year. It hasn't been too long.

The solution is reliable. I haven't seen a single bug or issue with the product. It's very stable. 

We have about 15 users on the solution currently.

As a company, we use Microsoft Teams. A lot of our customers say, "Oh, I know, we've got the same features in Microsoft Teams." However, that really isn't the case. Usually, if you're in a Microsoft shop, you would try and use all the Microsoft products. This is one space where Microsoft Teams doesn't cut it. We're using the Confluence instead.

The initial setup is very, very good. It's not complex it all. It's very straightforward and they make it very easy.

The entire setup isn't an intricate process. We didn't have to pour over documentation to try and figure things out. We just followed our instincts and it worked out quite well.

We handled the implementation ourselves. We didn't need any assistance from consultants or integrators.

For us, it's free to use. We don't pay any licensing.

We don't have a business relationship with Atlassian. We're just customers.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

This solution is highly recommended. If you're looking for a product in this space, this is the best. We had another really good tool, however, we find Confluence does the same and a whole lot more. I'd say in the knowledge management space, as far as we've been doing our business, and our job is to find tools for organizations, I'm convinced that this is the top product in this space.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. My one issue is the search capabilities. Otherwise, it's pretty perfect.

We have got our own private Confluence set up. In our department, we use Jira and Confluence a lot. These are our in-house go-to tools for managing the agile ways of working. We sort of follow a bit of both models: traditional and agile. We follow the traditional waterfall model outside of Confluence and Jira, so that's more like requirements, specifications, and documents. There's another team, with which I haven't been that involved, that writes user stories and allocates tasks in Jira. They use it quite heavily.

We use Jira more for agile type processing, like for Kanban boards and all that sort of stuff and allocating work tasks and two-week sprints. It supports the actual agile process. Jira is much more focused on the process of delivery.

It is just the fact that it is a one-stop shop for all project documentation. It is compared to storing things in files and directories and stuff like that. It provides the overall usability and accessibility of many projects and documents in one area. 

It would be good if they can continue working towards making documentation and editing as quick and easy as possible. 

It has got a lot of capability, but I don't know how to use it. I don't find some of the things that intuitive. Sometimes, it doesn't seem obvious to me how to use it, but it is like learning any new tool. You actually need to get trained on the tool to get maximum out of it.

I have been using this solution for the last two to three years.

It is scalable.

We have our own engineers.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I would rate Atlassian Confluence an eight out of ten. It provides everything for our use cases.