Adobe Workfront, acquired by Adobe in late 2020, is a web-based project-management tool. It is designed for both IT and marketing teams, but can be implemented for any kind of project. Workfront offers all the features standard to project management platforms, as well as resource allocation, automation, and agile workflow.
N/A
Confluence
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
Confluence is a collaboration and content sharing platform used primarily by customers who are already using Atlassian's Jira project tracking product. The product appeals particularly to IT users.
$6.40
per month per user
Microsoft Teams
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft Teams combines video conferencing software with team collaboration tools. The communications platform allows MS Office users to conduct conference calls and share files via SharePoint, and join or initiate a group chat.
$4.80
per month per user
Pricing
Adobe Workfront
Atlassian Confluence
Microsoft Teams
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Free
$0
Free for 10 Users
Standard
$6.40
per month per user
Premium
$12.30
per month per user
Data Center
220,000.00
40,001+ Users - Annually
Enterprise
Contact Sales
Microsoft Teams Essentials
$4.80
per month per user
Microsoft Teams Enterprise
$5.25
per month (paid yearly) per user
Microsoft Teams Enterprise
$5.25
per month per user
Microsoft 365 Business Basic
$7.20
per month per user
Microsoft 365 Business Standard
$15
per month per user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Adobe Workfront
Confluence
Microsoft Teams
Free Trial
No
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Prices shown here reflect prices for deployments with 100 users or less. The prices decrease wien the user base surpasses 100.
Discounts are available for non profit organizations.
We use both. Microsoft Teams is utilized more for meetings and urgent chat functions. Workfront is used for long-term projects and collaboration. Oftentimes these are used together.
I like both Jira and Asana. They both help streamline campaign processes and provide visibility into the work being completed by multiple departments. However, with Workfront, it syncs with other Adobe products, giving it an edge over other products.
JIRA is better for the day to day type work that is done by individuals or teams, Adobe Workfront excels at the high level day to day work that is done by an entire organization.
While I consider Jira to have a somewhat different targeted use case from Adobe Workfront, they definitely overlap in some of their capabilities. As mentioned earlier, I find that Adobe Workfront is better at tracking progress and managing resources for larger projects that …
It gave better structure for marketing/creative operations where intake, approvals and governance actually matter. Compared to Asana/Monday/Trello, it felt heavier but it handled standardised workflows, audit trails and stakeholder drived demand reliably.
We needed a single …
Adobe Workfront is great for project managers, but I personally don't enjoy using it to much. I work more in the design space and find Adobe Workfront to be a bit clunky and overly complicated at times.
Workamajig is great specifically for marketing project management. Jira is great specifically for software development project management. However, if you want all of the company on the same PM software, you need something less purpose-built. Asana is good for both, but lacks …
To manage the organization's work from project to project, the organization uses multiple project management solutions. In comparison to Jira, however, the only useful feature I found is the Gantt chart, which helps give a clear overview for multiple projects at once. Moreover, …
It's been a while since I've used another time and resource management platform, but I would say that Adobe Workfront takes the cake. Its newly refreshed user interface is simple to navigate, whereas other platforms can be quite confusing when "drilling down" on a project. …
Adobe is very intuitive in its workflow automation and creation of the task workflows that can be used as templates for employees. That is harder to create in Teams unless there is [the] integration of another Microsoft product and more time spent on it by an IT professional. …
For agile, I prefer the Atlassian suite, but for waterfall projects, Workfront was the right choice. In choosing Workfront (then AtTask), I made a weighted grid of features and benefits of a number of project management tools, including WorkZone, Asana, Celoxis, MS Project, …
We're looked at very simple AGILE tools and they just don't stack up to Workfront's more flexible abilities. AGILE tools like JIRA and Pivotal Tracker are great for really small and focused teams, but didn't provide any long-term resource management for us since we don't have …
AtTask is more flexible than these tools. In my opinion whether your building battleships, simple Wordpress websites, AtTask scales well to handles a range of project sizes.
Verified User
Project Manager
Chose Adobe Workfront
Asana: Lacked a level of management above projects and tasks. Timesheets, expense tracking, and reporting capabilities are not native. All require 3rd party applications, often at an additional cost. Unable to create custom data. Lacks a scheduling feature. Basecamp: Lacked a …
I personally prefer the usage of alternative project management or document storage apps. Atlassian Confluence is useful in having a centralised spot for multiple types of information, as opposed to Trello for example, and is much more structured. However, it has low visual …
It integrates well with other SAAS products and has been our industry standard for all projects that we're involved in.
Verified User
Engineer
Chose Atlassian Confluence
The way the knowledge is stored and indexed in Atlassian Confluence is very advanced so that it can be easily accessed. It supports including images, links, etc so that we can convey the idea very well. Overall it's very useful for organizations where new features are rolled …
Atlassian Confluence is more intuitive than MS SharePoint, however, SharePoint has some reach features because of the MS integration with its tools stack.
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Atlassian Confluence
Confluence smashes competitors out of the ballpark. There is no compromise for quality and great product design with Atlassian
Google Drive is not comparable to confluence, but it was the only other means for collaboration of documents and a shared hub for resources. But it serves more as a folder for resources rather than a repository of pages in information with links, documents, collaboration, …
There are complementary and we are in fact using both of them in out organisation. We are using Google Drive for advanced real-time cooperation when creating documents, since Google Drive can handle this in a more streamlined and easier way than Confluence. Still, Confluence …
I have used other tools that allow for documentation and housing of other business-related documents but none that I used had the same integration or general ability to add and edit information. I am also a general user so I don't know how easy/difficult the backend is, but …
We had used a lot of different tools in the past and it was always difficult to implement and train users. They were not easy to use. Confluence was so easy to learn and use. We never had executives even look at the other tools and now we have them actively using Confluence. …
Microsoft Teams is a complementary tool I used in my software panel. So it can cover many cases where partners are not using the same tools as the ones used in my firm. It is a complementary tool with other ones like Miro, Slack, and Jira, for example, in order to facilitate …
Verified User
Professional
Chose Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Teams is just a nicer front end to SharePoint for file and document management but it also has a good communication network for internal and external parties. It's easy to use on mobile device as well. It also integrates well with Microsoft Power Platform etc, meaning …
With Microsoft Teams you can better check each one's agenda. The background when in a meeting is better. Microsoft Teams also have more options for integrations in place. It's also easier and more intuitive. It also offers more options of communicating and not only video …
We used Adium in the past for our direct department and HipChat company-wide. I didn't mind HipChat so much, but it didn't have nearly as many features as Teams offers. Adium was a big pain in my butt because it is used for not just the company, but everything else you are …
I think Teams is ahead of the game. Its tight integration with the Microsoft suite has no rival. Having Azure as the backend provides a secure environment in the cloud with content accessible anytime anywhere. Microsoft is heavily investing in the product and constantly adding …
It works super well for creative brief intake and brand reviews. It took us more time than I'm willing to admit to get it all set up, but for our limited use case, it's working very well now. I'm not sure where it wouldn't be a good fit, honestly. As a newer user, it's still something I'm getting to know and learn.
I would recommend Atlassian Confluence for companies that want to have internal documentation and minimum governance processes to ensure documentation is useful and doesn't have a lot of duplicated and non-updated content. I wouldn't recommend Atlassian Confluence for companies with a low budget since this product might be a little costly (especially with add-ons).
It's amazing as a daily driver for team communication, and document search/store. Also, if you're doing a lot of LONG meetings and have trouble remembering details, the AI summarization is amazing and convenient. It just works. I'm not saying I always do this, of course, but if I need to 'skim' instead of really digging into every detail from a meeting, the AI-generated summary is generally good enough that I can get away with it.
Cross product linking - If you use other Atlassian products then Atlassian Confluence is a no-brainer for your source of documentation, knowledge management etc. You can show previews of the linked asset natively E.g. showing a preview of a JIRA ticket in a Atlassian Confluence page.
Simple editing - Though the features available may not be super complex right now, this does come with the benefit of making it easy to edit and create documents. Some documentation editors can be overwhelming, Atlassian Confluence is simple and intuitive.
Native marketplace - If you want to install add-ons to your Atlassian Confluence space it's really easy. Admins can explore the Atlassian marketplace natively and install them to your instance in a few clicks. You can customise your Atlassian Confluence instance in many different ways using add-ons.
Allow nonusers to add requests, our organization has no need to add all 10,000+ team members to Adobe Workfront, but would like them to be able to send requests to our team
UI Design is very simplistic and basic could make use of more visually interesting colour choices, layout choices, etc.
Under the 'Content' menu, it defaults to having a landing page for all L1 and L2 category pages. Meaning as long as the broader content category has a sub-category, it still creates a separate landing page. In my team's case, this often creates blank pages, as we only fill out the page at the lowest sub-category (L3).
Hyperlinks are traditionally shown as blue, however, this results into very monotonously blue pages in cases where a lot of information is being linked.
The webinars feature has some missing functionally such as the ability for all users to use the Q&A feature (only those with a Microsoft Teams account can use it now), the ability to upload documents for attendees to easily access and download, and the ability for presenters and organizers to easily chat amongst themselves throughout the webinar.
The "Channels" organization hierarchy could be more clear. If you have several channels set up, it can get clunky and hard to find the specific channel you are looking for.
The MS Planner tool lacks functionality and organization. You cannot assign more than one person to a task and it's confusing when you try to share tasks with people - it would be nice if they were automatically added to someone's calendar.
Workfront is sometimes a bit clunky to use, but overall it works well for our teams when it comes to project management and collaboration across multiple, involved teams. It also has flexibility that allows us to adapt it to diverse use cases, some of which aren't necessarily always the first things that one would think of using workfront for.
I am confident that Atlassian can come with additional and innovative macros and functions to add value to Confluence. In 6 months, Atlassian transformed a good collaborative tools into a more comprehensive system that can help manage projects and processes, as well as "talk" with other Atlassian products like Jira. We are in fact learning more about Jira to evaluate a possible fit to complement our tool box.
Microsoft Teams is included with our Office 365 subscription and we have no intention of migrating off of Office 365 and Microsoft products. Since Microsoft Teams is included for free with our Office 365 subscription, and since we enjoy all the features, benefits, and functionality, there is no question that our team will continue to use the product
Workfront is overly complex, but it is functional as a tool to keep track of projects. It is a shame that sometimes it takes a lot of clicks to find anything. Workfront is slowly modernizing its interface but at the same time, hides certain information away thus making the experience feels worse.
Great for organizing knowledge in a hierarchical format. Seamless for engineering and product teams managing software development. Helps in formatting pages effectively, reducing manual work. Tracks changes well and allows for easy rollbacks. Granular controls for who can view/edit pages. Search function is not great which needs improvement. Hire some google engineers
If you have the full Microsoft Office suite, it works really well because it's integrated well within its ecosystem, but if not, it can be annoying because it tries to open a shared file in the web versions of the file equivalents. The web version is also a bit slow, and the login is very difficult to handle if you have multiple Microsoft or Outlook accounts.
Maintenance is required, but usually after work hours, Some days the proofing tool function is not operational, but this is a new function of the tool that WF is working out. the kinks on. Chrome is the best browser to use the system in and we find Firefox and Explorer lose some view functionality - Gantt Chart, Resource Grid
I think overall, Adobe Workfront performs well. There have been some times when it doesn't load or run as quickly as our team would like. This is frustrating when it is such a crucial tool that our team utilizes on a daily basis. It can show our workflow when it lags.
We never worked against the tide while using Confluence. Everything loads considerably fast, even media components like videos (hosted on the platform or embed external videos from Youtube, for example). We are not using heavy media components a lot, but in the rare occasion we happen to use one we have no problems whatsoever.
I know that this particular company has it's own Adobe Workfront employee that builds out things they need from the software, and meets with them regularly to troubleshoot. I'm not part of this process, but it's refreshing to see Adobe provide this level of customer service to people, and they're expedient.
This rating is specifically for Atlassian's self-help documentation on their website. Often times, it is not robust enough to cover a complex usage of one of their features. Frequently, you can find an answer on the web, but not from Atlassian. Instead, it is usually at a power user group elsewhere on the net.
The overall support provided by Microsoft for Microsoft Teams has been quite good but there is still some room for improvements. Microsoft needs to proactively work on fixing the open bugs in order to provide a seamless experience to the users. But over the service and experience provided by the Microsoft team have been quite satisfactory.
The training is very easy to use and you can simply choose the topics included in the course(s) that are most important to your training needs. After each training course, you are tested on what you have learned. If you need a refresher course, they provide Course Catalogs as well as instructor-led courses & workshops.
Most people learn as you go, a lot of this stuff requires trial and error throughout so my suggestion is to provide as much information in the upfront and keep it as simple as possible. You can add other tools and features as you go but everyone should have the basics down so no bad habits can start to develop. Be persistent with everyone, and don't be afraid to correct and talk through steps again so everyone is on the same page
Adobe Workfront blows the other systems out of the water. It just delivers more - out of the gate, and at every quarterly update. Innovation is top of mind, and meeting customers' needs is key. We have been extremely satisfied with Workfront and look forward to all the new features on the horizon, especially AI.
We chose Atlassian Confluence over SharePoint because it's much more user-friendly and intuitive. Atlassian Confluence makes collaboration and knowledge sharing easier with its simpler interface and better search. While SharePoint can be powerful, it often feels clunky and complex, making it harder for our team to actually use it.
Microsoft Teams offers a much more integrated experience between their chat and video call function compared to Google Chat and Slack. Both other tools are much better for internal communications are they have simpler UI without other features. Whereas Microsoft Teams can be used for more critical conversations, particularly between external companies, and has been very useful in sales conversations which is what we chose it for when speaking to companies that work exclusively through Microsoft.
As I stated earlier, I didn't have to pay for Workfront myself- I'm a user under a large organization. I know it's not cheap to implement, I don't know how the price scales for a small-business, but I do like the product enough that I'm going to look into it in the future for my own company.
Honestly, this tool is worth every penny. Yes, it's not free and you pay for the quality of services and the license. But the ROI and the benefits are all there. Also, the renewal, negotiation, and contract terms are all very well explained by our Microsoft account manager, and she's a charm.
Our organization has thousands of users that use Workfront and it seems to hold up very well. I have not encountered any issues using it and I think it makes it very easy for multiple people to be involved in a project and keep things organized and clear for everyone involved.
I used Skype for Business to take calls, hold conferences, and provide remote assistance to users. Microsoft Teams, on the other hand, is superior to Skype for Business in my opinion. My job entails a lot of screen sharing.
Resource Management - Year over year, we were able to validate time and money saved by the implementation of Workfront by more than 2%, saving in non-working dollars and 9% savings in working media dollars.
Organization Restructuring and Automation- We also restructured our teams and implemented automation based on our analysis of how and what we spend our time on and the ROI for our respective business units.
Personally, I would say that by using Microsoft Teams, it upped my collaboration with my colleagues by around 50% or around more than half of what I usually did prior to using it.
I had 100% show rate and attendance on all of my meetings in the past 6 months.
If I may add, I also have been chattier & collaborative towards my colleagues in past 3 months particularly the month of December when we had huge traffic at work. I would estimate this behavior to have been increased by around 60% than what I usually incur during normal operating days.