Gallery
The Ultimate Confluence vs Coda Evaluation Guide in 2024
Share
Explore
Gallery
The Ultimate Confluence vs Coda Evaluation Guide in 2024
Ease of use

icon picker
Interface aesthetic

A side-by-side comparison of Confluence and Coda's interface.
One of the most common complaints we hear from teams switching from Confluence is that Confluence’s interface is “ugly,” “cumbersome,” and straight up “not fun” (all direct quotes from customers). As I mentioned above, at first it might not seem like a big deal that your tool has an unappealing UI, but over time these paper cuts can hold you back.
This goes back to the job you’re employing Confluence for. It might be okay that your company travel policy lives in an ugly container because it receives little traffic and rarely needs to be updated. But for the single source of truth that your team lives out of, this pain mounts quickly.
I compared Confluence and Coda across four use cases in the
Use cases
⁠
section, but let’s specifically compare the user experience across three of those common use cases.

Wikis & team hubs

⁠
Hubs.png
⁠
⁠

Projects & tasks

⁠
Tracker.png
⁠
⁠

Apps & workflows

⁠
Apps.png
⁠
⁠
It’s my perspective that when your work is wrapped in a beautiful interface that has a familiar look and feel, it’s easier for your team to get their work done. And when it’s easy to get work done, your team will keep coming back to the same tool. Whether it’s callouts, embeds, native charts, custom icons (and gifs!), progress bars, or reactions, people seem to enjoy using Coda more than Confluence. Coda brings a bit of levity to your everyday, making work feel less like work.

⁠

⁠
double-left.svg
⁠
⁠
Collaboration
Confluence's publishing model limits how teams collaborate.
⁠
Automations and integrations
Comparing Confluence macros to Coda's native automations and integrations.
⁠
double-right.svg
⁠
⁠

⁠
Gallery
Share
 
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.