Folio vs. Confluence
Choose Folio when documentation should live beside code and people, developers and agents need to work with the same content. Confluence remains stronger when an organization depends on Atlassian Cloud, Jira-connected workflows, enterprise administration, compliance and a mature app ecosystem.
The workflow difference
In Folio, a browser edit syncs to readable Markdown in Git. An IDE change returns to the wiki, and agents work with the same content through MCP.
Folio's Confluence Space importer creates Markdown files plus an asset directory, rewrites links and imports attachments. Macro-heavy pages still need review.
Side by side
| Area | Folio | Confluence |
|---|---|---|
| Source of truth | Readable files in your Git repository | Pages stored and managed in Confluence |
| Deployment | Self-hosted with Docker | Atlassian Cloud or self-managed Data Center |
| Editing | Browser, source view or any Git-capable editor | Confluence editor and supported integrations |
| Git workflow | Git is the live content history | Git requires a separate integration or process |
| Collaboration | Real-time browser editing with Git synchronization | Mature collaborative editing, comments and Jira-connected work |
| Structured data | Markdown-backed tables and forms | Pages, databases through apps, and Atlassian ecosystem features |
| Agents | Built-in Ask/Agent plus MCP over the same pages | Rovo and Atlassian integrations |
| Search | Search across the self-hosted wiki | Enterprise search across Atlassian products and connected sources |
| Permissions | Space roles, page rights and personal MCP tokens | Space and content permissions with enterprise controls |
| Migration | Confluence Space importer; macro-heavy pages need review | Official space export formats |
| Enterprise admin | No SSO, SCIM or groups today | Established enterprise administration and compliance controls |
What Folio changes
- Documentation can be reviewed, branched and recovered with normal Git tools.
- People, IDEs and agents work against one content model instead of maintaining a second copy.
- Leaving Folio leaves you with ordinary Markdown and assets in your repository.
- You operate PostgreSQL, Redis, persistent storage and backups; Git conflicts still require resolution.
Where Folio is the better choice
Choose Folio when documentation should live beside the code it describes. The wiki is self-hosted, its history is Git, and browser edits, IDE edits and agents all work on the same readable Markdown files. If you want full control over your data, Git-native review and agents that read and write the real source of truth, Folio is the better choice.
Try it with one real workflow
- Import one representative Confluence page tree.
- Review links, attachments and macro-heavy pages.
- Edit one page in Folio, sync it and inspect the Markdown commit.
- Change that file in an IDE and confirm it returns to the wiki.
- Give one agent read-only MCP access and verify its answers.
Other comparisons
Try Folio with one real team wiki.
Clone it, run it, and test the workflow with your own files.