Comparing XWiki to MediaWiki and Confluence on

What do you think about the idea to compare XWiki with other solutions on our website?

This is an iteration for the comparison with Confluence and MediaWiki:

Since I’m not an experimented user of those solutions, maybe other people might share their opinion on the points listed there. Any feedback is welcomed. Thanks.

Older discussion related to this topic:

Nice start Caty. I like to L&F and most of the content.

What would be awesome is if some confluence and mediawiki users on this forum could help validate if what we said is correct.

Guys, can you help? :slight_smile:


On the “Programming capabilities”, XWiki actually support any scripting engine implementing Java Scripting API and Python 2.7 (in standard WAR) and Ruby (extension) both works very well (as well as Groovy actually except a bit slower in case of Python).

There is actually structure data support in Mediawiki trough It’s used on for example (not a very good advertisement I must say since it’s making a huge pain to edit information in that page).

By “App Store” you just mean “install extensions directly from the software” ? When reading that line in the MediaWiki comparison it feel like “XWiki has lots of extension and MediaWiki don’t” while MediaWiki probably have more.


  • Fixed the “free for open-source/non-profit” ambiguities
  • Added some clients for Confluence
  • I’ve put the Databases listed on WikiMatrix.


  • Programming
    – OLD: “VERY ADVANCED using Velocity, Groovy and Java using thousands of available APIs”
    – NEW: “VERY ADVANCED, supporting any scripting engine implementing Java Scripting API, Velocity, Groovy, Python, plus Ruby, PHP with extension”
    — Let me know if it’s fine, or please edit it in the wiki page

  • Structure Data
    – I’ve modified from “No” to “Partial, with extension”

  • App Store
    – By App Store I mean a Repository application, paying or not. The “app store” is defined as a “digital distribution platform… that allows users to browse and download apps”
    – I’ve marked that MediaWiki has extensions in the “Extensible” row, although my focus was more on applications. Let me know if I should have a special entry for applications, since I’ve tried to compress apps+extensibility into a single line.

Thank you so much for your comments. Keep them coming :slight_smile:
Do you have other ideas of XWiki features that set it apart from other solutions?

We need to add a line for “Nested Page”. That’s a strong point of XWiki vs Confluence and Mediawiki.

I also think that XWiki has better than legendary support but that’s subjective and would be tough to express it in a non-controversial way… :wink:

still it’s kind of hard to scale this :slight_smile:

Since Velocity is not used trough Java Scripting API (it’s actually so customized that it’s closed to being the “XWiki Scripting Language”) I would say something like:

“supporting Velocity plus any scripting engine implementing Java Scripting API (Groovy and Python are embedded and shortcuts are also provided as extension for Ruby and PHP)”

The “shortcut” thing is too complex to understand (not even sure I understand it) and I don’t think it’s necessary. This is just a summary table. We just need highlights.

Also Java Scripting API is too technical too. It’s better to list the main languages we support and say something like “and more” and link to the scripting page on that explains that we support the Java Scripting API and give more details.

So I would say:

“VERY ADVANCED, full API access through scripting in various languages: Velocity, Groovy, Python, Ruby, and [[more>>…]]”

I think it’s important that we mention scripting and you removed it with your proposal. Also PHP should not be mentioned since it’s useless (you can’t do any real work work with it - I really wouldn’t advertise it).

You could say:

“VERY ADVANCED, Java but also full API access through scripting in various languages: Velocity, Groovy, Python, Ruby, and [[more>>…]]”


VERY ADVANCED, Java but also full API access through scripting in various languages: Velocity, Groovy, Python, plus Ruby, PHP with extension

Added PHP since it’s important for the MediaWiki comparison. The more link is already present in the “Why is it important?” column.

Again PHP should not be advertised IMO since it’s not usable.

Also what you wrote is not correct. Why “PHP with extension” but not “Ruby with extension” for ex?

What is after plus is “with extension”.

ok that’s confusing. Just drop “plus” and “with extension” and it’ll be more readable :slight_smile: (it’s not needed at this level IMO). And ideally the Python one should be with extension too (just that we need it ATM for the code macro). If you really want to keep “plus…with extension”, I’d suggest using “+” which will make it more visible.

@evalica I think we should move the pages out of draft and publish them now. We can still tune them as we get feedback. WDYT? Thanks!

But it’s a detail :slight_smile: So no worries.

I was going to suggest but that site seems to be down