Engineering and remote-first teams that want Git-style versioned document review with branches, pull requests, and merge workflow. Particularly defensible for regulated buyers needing rigorous audit trails and for teams already aligned around an engineering-style structured collaboration model.
Teams that want a flexible doc-database wiki (Notion or Coda better), teams that find the branch-and-merge workflow heavy (Notion, Slab, or Confluence better), regulated buyers concerned about vendor longevity, or teams that need deep integration breadth.
Is Almanac a trustworthy vendor?
- 2021-09-14Almanac raised 34M USD Series A led by Tiger GlobalReported total funding around 43M USD; positioned Almanac as the Git-style versioned wiki for engineering and remote-first teams.
- 2024-06-18Roadmap velocity slowed and public communication reducedVendor footprint contracted meaningfully in 2024 with reduced public communication; buyers reported slower feature delivery and longer support response times.
- 2025-08-22Acquisition or wind-down risk surfaced for buyer awarenessReduced funding announcements and roadmap velocity raise reasonable buyer concerns about vendor longevity; worth evaluating renewal risk explicitly.
What 95 reviews actually say
Synthesized from G2, Capterra, Reddit, Trustpilot. Patterns >15% prevalence shown.
Praise patterns
- Most rigorous document versioning in the category87% →
- Git-style branch-and-merge workflow for async editing78% →
- Defensible audit trail for regulated buyers71% →
- Strong on engineering-style structured document review64% ↓
Complaint patterns
- Vendor footprint contracted in 2024-2025 with slower velocity51% ↑
- Branch-and-merge workflow has a learning curve many teams reject47% →
- Acquisition or wind-down risk worth evaluating41% ↑
- Smaller integration footprint than Notion or Slab38% →
What buyers actually pay
42 anonymized deal disclosures · last updated 2026-05-01
| Company size | Median annual |
|---|---|
| 10 to 50 employees (Pro) | $3,600 |
| 50 to 200 employees (Pro) | $14,400 |
| 200+ employees (Business) | $48,000 |
Auto-verified certifications
Editorial: Strengths
- Most rigorous document versioning in the category
- Git-style branch-and-merge workflow for async document review
- Defensible audit trail for regulated buyers
- Strong on engineering-style structured document review
- Reasonable Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 integration
- Permission model aligned with branch-and-merge mental model
- Public API and webhook support
Editorial: Weaknesses
- Vendor footprint contracted in 2024-2025 with slower roadmap velocity
- Acquisition or wind-down risk is a real factor for buyers
- Branch-and-merge workflow has a learning curve many teams reject
- No doc-database hybrid features
- Smaller integration footprint than Notion or Slab
- AI features lighter than Notion AI or Slite AI
- Brand recognition lags Notion, Confluence, and Slab
Key features & integrations
- +Git-style branches, pull requests, and merge workflow on documents
- +Rigorous document versioning with diff view
- +Doc templates and structured content
- +AI-assisted writing and summarization
- +Permissions at workspace, branch, and doc level
- +SAML SSO at Business
- +Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 integration
- +Public REST API and webhooks
- +Mobile apps for iOS and Android
- +Audit trail for regulated buyers
Read our full ranking of Wiki / Internal Knowledge Management
Almanac ranks #9 in our editorial review of 10 wiki / internal knowledge management platforms. The deep-dive covers methodology, comparison tables, decision matrix, migration scoring, and FAQs.
Read the full rankingClosest alternatives in Wiki / Internal Knowledge Management
Contribute your verified deal price
Pricing in B2B software is opaque because vendors want it that way. Verified buyer prices fix that, anonymously. Share what you actually paid for Almanac; we’ll add it to the verified pricing dataset on this page (with company size band only, no identifying details).
Submit anonymously