Skip to content
Z Zendikt
Vendor trust scorecard

Atlassian Confluence vendor trust score

Trust scoring is the “is this vendor a fair counterparty” question, deliberately separated from product quality. Six dimensions, dated, sourced where events warrant it.

6.8
/10
mixed
Verdict

Atlassian Confluence's vendor trust profile is mixed. The dimension scores below show where to negotiate hard and what to monitor across a multi-year contract.

Vendor Trust Score

Is Atlassian Confluence a trustworthy vendor?

6.8/10
Mixed
Pricing transparency
Published rates; no hidden fees
6.5
Contract fairness
Reasonable terms; no auto-renew traps
6.0
Incident response
How they handle outages and breaches
7.5
Post-acquisition behavior
Customer treatment after M&A or PE
6.5
Executive stability
Leadership churn over 24 months
8.0
Roadmap honesty
Public commitments held
6.5
Trust signal log
  • 2023-10-18
    Atlassian pushed Cloud price hikes of 10 to 20 percent across Confluence tiers
    Standard, Premium, and Enterprise Cloud tier list prices increased 10 to 20 percent through 2023; buyer pushback documented in G2 and Reddit reviews through 2023-2024.
  • 2024-02-15
    Confluence Server reached end-of-life
    Atlassian Server end-of-life including Confluence Server forced on-prem customers to Confluence Data Center or to migrate off-platform; meaningful share of buyers migrated away during 2023-2024.
  • 2024-09-04
    Data Center repricing drew buyer pushback
    Separate Confluence Data Center repricing announced in 2024 with minimum 500 user floors; smaller on-prem buyers forced into Cloud or off-platform.
  • 2025-02-12
    Atlassian Intelligence rolled into Premium tier
    AI summarization and Q-and-A capabilities bundled into Premium; useful but ships behind Notion AI and Slite AI in independent buyer feedback.
Vendor Trust is scored independently of product quality. A great product from an unfair vendor still earns a low trust score.

How to read this score

  • Trust is separate from product quality. A vendor can ship great software and treat customers badly — or vice versa. We score the two independently.
  • 8.0+/10: strong. Few concerns at renewal or procurement.
  • 6.5–7.9: mixed. Negotiate hard on the lowest dimensions; monitor across the contract term.
  • 5.0–6.4: cautious. Add explicit mitigation language to the master agreement.
  • Below 5.0: concerning. Treat this as a contracted-risk evaluation, not a product-fit evaluation.
  • Updates: we re-verify scoring quarterly. Material trust events (acquisitions, breaches, leadership change, hostile contract terms) get logged on the timeline above.

Related editorial

Last updated 2026-05-10. Scoring methodology: editorial standards. Disagree? Tell us.