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
Buffer
Score 7.7 out of 10
Small Businesses (1-50 employees)
Buffer is a social sharing tool. When browsing content, clicking on the Buffer icon automatically stores the content and schedules posts to social media channels throughout the day.
$6
per month per channel
X Pro
Score 7.9 out of 10
N/A
Replacing the former TweetDeck, X Pro is a social media dashboard application for management of Twitter accounts.
N/A
Pricing
Atlassian Confluence
Buffer
X Pro
Editions & Modules
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
Free
$0
Essentials
$6
per month per channel
Team
$12
per month per channel
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Confluence
Buffer
X Pro
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
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.
A discount is offered for annual billing.
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Atlassian Confluence
Buffer
X Pro
Considered Multiple Products
Confluence
No answer on this topic
Buffer
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Buffer
Buffer is way easier to use and setup than Hubspot and Meta. You'd think Meta would make it easy to post on both Facebook and Instagram, but I have consistently run into issues when uploading files. I've never had an issue with Buffer.
We selected this tool to maintain the activity of publication in social networks at a low cost and good productivity, we consider that it adds to our objectives of brand awareness or discovery, since it allows us to keep our channels active with information and content that we …
Buffer and Hootsuite are considered as best tools for managing your social media accounts . The only difference which I feel between the two is Buffer is [more] focused on pre-scheduling and Hootsuite is a advanced version of Buffer you can say it allows you full -fledged …
While you can use TweetDeck with other social networks, its primary focus is on Twitter, and they’ve developed a robust feature set to cater to managing Twitter. If your business is multi-networked, then you'll need Buffer.
Buffer is more user-friendly and offers a queue, where you can shuffle your updates and schedule them for the future. You can also schedule slots that get the most engagement with your audience, which is extremely helpful when you're trying to hit KPI's. I didn't use Sprout's …
We started off using TweetDeck and then migrated to Hootsuite. These apps work fine for monitoring partner posts and hashtags that are relevant to our brand but their sharing and scheduling utilities were clunky and inefficient. I'd still be using them for social media …
When [it comes to] comparison I found all these platforms competitive and having great features altogether. All features are the same like monitoring, scheduling, Analysing but TweetDeck mainly analyzes on Twitter whereas on Hootsuite and Buffer, [it only] allows [you to] …
Features
Atlassian Confluence
Buffer
X Pro
Project Management
Comparison of Project Management features of Product A and Product B
Atlassian Confluence
7.0
157 Ratings
11% below category average
Buffer
-
Ratings
X Pro
-
Ratings
Task Management
7.1125 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Gantt Charts
7.912 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Scheduling
7.221 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Workflow Automation
6.389 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Mobile Access
6.7116 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Search
6.8155 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Visual planning tools
7.2126 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Communication
Comparison of Communication features of Product A and Product B
Atlassian Confluence
7.9
157 Ratings
1% below category average
Buffer
-
Ratings
X Pro
-
Ratings
Chat
6.415 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Notifications
8.2154 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Discussions
7.7147 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Surveys
7.015 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Internal knowledgebase
9.0148 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Integrates with GoToMeeting
6.03 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Integrates with Gmail and Google Hangouts
9.37 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Integrates with Outlook
9.610 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
File Sharing & Management
Comparison of File Sharing & Management features of Product A and Product B
Atlassian Confluence
7.7
156 Ratings
4% below category average
Buffer
-
Ratings
X Pro
-
Ratings
Versioning
8.2135 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Video files
6.8104 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Audio files
6.896 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Document collaboration
8.3151 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Access control
8.6146 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Advanced security features
8.3113 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Integrates with Google Drive
5.947 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Device sync
8.384 Ratings
00 Ratings
00 Ratings
Publishing
Comparison of Publishing features of Product A and Product B
Atlassian Confluence
-
Ratings
Buffer
7.9
77 Ratings
2% below category average
X Pro
-
Ratings
Content planning and scheduling
00 Ratings
8.677 Ratings
00 Ratings
Content optimization
00 Ratings
7.470 Ratings
00 Ratings
Workflow management
00 Ratings
7.866 Ratings
00 Ratings
Reporting/analytics
Comparison of Reporting/analytics features of Product A and Product B
Atlassian Confluence
-
Ratings
Buffer
7.1
70 Ratings
8% below category average
X Pro
-
Ratings
Campaign success analytics
00 Ratings
7.170 Ratings
00 Ratings
Account management
Comparison of Account management features of Product A and Product B
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 helps me save hours by devoting only half an hour in a month's worth of posting, in addition to that it is quite simple to use. Buffer for scheduling social posts well in advance, but I have begun using it instead of posting natively on the social apps themselves because it makes it super easy to post the same messages to more than one platform.
TweetDeck is ideal for complex media organisations / newsrooms where you want to keep track of several users accounts, or switch between multiple user and/or title accounts. It is perfect for those who want to follow conversations in real-time via many channels, at a glance. It is also useful for those who want to schedule tweets to provide around the clock coverage even when unmanned. Now that it paid-for is less suited to smaller organisations with tight budgets.
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.
TweetDeck is the best platform to schedule tweets - it is far better than the website itself. The process is remarkably easy and scheduling a day's worth of tweets takes no more than 10 minutes.
Tracking news is very easy on TweetDeck due to being able to create multiple columns each focusing on a different subject. Columns can be created using handles, searches, hashtags, and trends, and this makes TweetDeck a great platform as a news editor.
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.
Expensive Analytics: The upgrade you need to access your analytics is quite expensive, and I have come across other tools that provide the same or even more for a lesser priced plan.
No Media Library: The one feature I have found on another social media planning tool that I wish Buffer had is a media library. This allows you to upload photos you aren't using right away to have them readily available when you do decide to use them. This is not a feature in Buffer.
TweetDeck has an editing feature for scheduled posts only if there is no image attached. When a post with an image needs editing, users must instead delete the entire post and reschedule it with the edits needed.
TweetDeck has a real-time display, however users often need to refresh the window manually to get scheduled posts to appear in the appropriate column.
TweetDeck users can scroll side to side to view all off the types of columns selected. This functionality often leads to traveling back to a previous page unintentionally.
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.
I am giving buffer this rating because of a couple issues that it has compared to other platforms. It does not always post to instagram and you will need to go in an manually post. Also, one of the biggest qualms that we have with buffer is the price it costs to have robust analytics
As I previously mentioned, if TweetDeck were to increase some features and integrations, cleaned up its interface, and developed a tool to measure ROI, it would remain competitive with HootSuite and Hubspot. Altogether, it is an effective tool for the job of scheduling and monitoring your impact on Twitter, it falls behind other competitors that offer a more robust solution.
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
We use Buffer for certain website content that should be shared on social networks, having this tool helps us to do it faster and easier since we can send the publications from the internet browser and the stack of scheduled messages. It is really fast and easy for all team members who share access to the account, so at the same time that we analyze the information that we can share, the message stack is prepared
It's a pretty easy tool to use I find a few of the columns to be a bit repetitive. If you are managing more than one account you'll start to find yourself having easily 10 plus columns all tracking all different information which creates nice track lanes to keep all that relative information in one column or "view". With the amount of data that is pushed out, if you are following a large number of accounts, it's extremely easy to lose valuable posts in your feeds. As you begin building out your columns they get the point where you only look at one or two and the rest seem to be lost. Overall, this a free tool and there are other social monitoring tools that are out there but are in the multiple thousands of dollar range
TweetDeck tends to be available for use majority of the time...however, I've had times where it would get stuck in a loop and then post my Tweet multiple times.
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.
Buffer performs well on both desktop and mobile platforms. The one area as I have stated before is that it does not always want to automatically push to Instagram and the user will have to go do it manually. Buffer works very well pushing to other platforms. The instagram issue is the only reason buffer does not get a 10 on this section
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.
I've never had to contact customer support. Tweetdeck has always worked like a charm for me. And, if I have had a problem, I've simply deleted the column, then recreated it and it worked again. While it's not without its glitches every once in a great while, it's worked like a charm.
We were very satisfied with the implementation of Buffer. We had no issues switching from the platform that we were using over to buffer. Our staff did not even miss a beat when it came to posting content. It was an easy transition and I feel that is something that buffer has really done well. They have an "out of the box" usability platform
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.
I also used Combin which is easy and free to use. However, Combin only posts when the computer is active and connected to the internet. So, posting while you are not actively using your computer at that moment is not possible, therefore Buffer is much more efficient as you can even post while being on vacation without working.
Several years ago I used the Hootsuite Free service. I found Tweetdeck to be preferable because of its user interface, and greater functionality. Moreover, I recall Hootsuite bombarding me with emails that were just irrelevant. TweetDeck just does what it does, without hassle. Its UI and functionality for multiple accounts seems to be the best I've tried.
Buffer does what it say on tin as they say! you can always count on Buffer. Buffer can be scale to 25 social account with 2,000 scheduled post which is enough for most agencies or businesses