Comparison
DraftView vs Confluence for Documentation Review
Many teams use Confluence as a review staging area for documentation that ultimately lives in GitHub. Here's how that workflow compares to using DraftView, a purpose-built visual review tool that keeps everything in your PR.
Feature Comparison
| Capability | DraftView | Confluence |
|---|---|---|
| Visual document review | ✓ | ✓ |
| Inline comments and suggestions | ✓ | ✓ |
| Reviews Markdown/MDX/AsciiDoc natively | ✓ | ✗ |
| Syncs suggestions to GitHub PR | ✓ | ✗ |
| No content duplication required | ✓ | ✗ |
| Git-native version control | ✓ | ✗ |
| Reviewer attribution in Git history | ✓ | ✗ |
| Compliance audit trail | ✓ | ◐ |
| Built-in wiki and knowledge base | ✗ | ✓ |
| Rich page templates and macros | ✗ | ✓ |
| Works without GitHub account | ✗ | ✓ |
| Jira/Atlassian ecosystem integration | ✗ | ✓ |
✓ = Full support ◐ = Partial support ✗ = Not supported
How They Compare in Practice
The Confluence Review Workflow
Confluence: The technical writer copies rendered documentation content into a Confluence page, shares it with reviewers, and collects comments and inline suggestions there. Once feedback is collected, the writer must manually transfer each change back to the Markdown source in Git. The Confluence page and Git repository are completely disconnected; there is no automatic sync.
DraftView: DraftView renders the GitHub PR as a visual review page. Reviewers authenticate with their GitHub account, read the rendered document, and suggest edits inline. Every suggestion syncs directly back to the PR as a native GitHub Suggested Change, so no manual reconciliation is needed.
Content Duplication
Confluence: Using Confluence for documentation review means maintaining two copies of your content: the source in Git and the review copy in Confluence. These copies immediately start drifting apart. If the Git source changes while review is in progress, the Confluence page becomes stale, and applying old feedback to new content creates merge conflicts.
DraftView: There is no second copy. DraftView reads directly from the PR branch. The content you review is always the current version.
Format Fidelity
Confluence: Confluence uses its own proprietary markup. Markdown, MDX, and AsciiDoc content must be reformatted or pasted as plain text. Code blocks, frontmatter, admonitions, and component-based content (like MDX) lose their structure. Reviewers may be commenting on formatting artifacts rather than actual content.
DraftView: DraftView renders Markdown, MDX, and AsciiDoc natively using a purpose-built rendering engine. What reviewers see matches what will be published on your documentation site.
When Confluence Is the Better Choice
- Your documentation lives natively in Confluence (not in Git)
- You need a general-purpose wiki and knowledge base alongside documentation
- Your team is deeply integrated with the Atlassian ecosystem (Jira, Trello, Bitbucket)
- Reviewers cannot create a GitHub account
When DraftView Is the Better Choice
- Your documentation source is Markdown, MDX, or AsciiDoc stored in GitHub
- You want reviewer suggestions to land in the PR as GitHub Suggested Changes
- You need to eliminate the copy-paste-reconcile cycle between Confluence and Git
- You require Git-native audit trails for compliance (SOC2, legal sign-off)
- You work in a docs-as-code workflow and want reviews in the same pipeline
Stop duplicating documentation into Confluence for review.
DraftView renders your GitHub PR as a visual review page. Reviewer suggestions sync back as native GitHub Suggested Changes. No manual reconciliation is needed.
Join the Waitlist