- Home
- ...
- Knowledge Base Software
- Confluence
- Stack Overflow for Teams
- Confluence-vs-Stack Overflow for Teams
Compare Confluence and Stack Overflow for Teams 
- Users report that Confluence excels in its Templates feature, with a score of 8.5, allowing teams to create structured documents easily, while Stack Overflow for Teams received a lower score of 7.4, indicating less flexibility in template options.
- Reviewers mention that Stack Overflow for Teams shines in its Q & A functionality, scoring 9.2, which is higher than Confluence's 8.6, making it a preferred choice for teams focused on knowledge sharing and problem-solving.
- G2 users highlight that Confluence's Versioning and Version History feature scores 8.9, providing robust tracking of document changes, whereas Stack Overflow for Teams scored 8.0, suggesting it may not offer the same level of detail in version control.
- Users on G2 report that Stack Overflow for Teams has a superior Ease of Use rating of 9.0 compared to Confluence's 7.9, indicating that teams may find it more intuitive and user-friendly for daily operations.
- Reviewers say that Confluence's Knowledge Sharing capabilities are on par with Stack Overflow for Teams, both scoring 9.2, but users note that Confluence offers more comprehensive organizational features, which can enhance team collaboration.
- Users report that Stack Overflow for Teams has a better Notification system, scoring 8.4 compared to Confluence's 8.6, but they mention that Confluence's notifications are more customizable, allowing for tailored updates based on user preferences.
- Unlimited workspaces
- Rich content editor
- Page hierarchy and versioning
- Single sign-on (SSO) with SAML + Okta integration
- Slack and Microsoft Teams integrations: ask, answer, and discover knowledge directly from your chat apps
- Your own private space hosted on stackoverflowteams.com
I like a lot of the macros offered and make use of several of them (I think we also have a few extra ones). I also like how you can integrate portions of JIRA and Balsamiq, using the macros, this comes in handy with my spec pages.
Search is a pain. The more questions are asked in Q&A, the more difficult it becomes to find what you want, because it seems like questions are prioritized over stable doc pages. Search seems to default to "or" so searching for "product feature" will show...
Instead of going to a person and asking for the solution to a particular issue, we post it on Stack Overflow and the respective person provides the solution. This saves time of both people also if someone else triggers that same issue they quickly find it...
I think the platform needs a fuller wiki, or way to organize questions into topics and practice areas beyond what is already available. We need a way for someone to curate pages of content, essentially.
I like a lot of the macros offered and make use of several of them (I think we also have a few extra ones). I also like how you can integrate portions of JIRA and Balsamiq, using the macros, this comes in handy with my spec pages.
Instead of going to a person and asking for the solution to a particular issue, we post it on Stack Overflow and the respective person provides the solution. This saves time of both people also if someone else triggers that same issue they quickly find it...
Search is a pain. The more questions are asked in Q&A, the more difficult it becomes to find what you want, because it seems like questions are prioritized over stable doc pages. Search seems to default to "or" so searching for "product feature" will show...
I think the platform needs a fuller wiki, or way to organize questions into topics and practice areas beyond what is already available. We need a way for someone to curate pages of content, essentially.
