Contentful vs. Paligo

Coming from WordPress, Contentful feels like content management as it should be. There's no clutter to get rid of, you can simply start building from scratch, and the end product is perfectly tailored to your or your clients needs.

Incentivized

Paligo is particularly well suited for developing similar document sets for multiple products or product lines. It is not a page layout application, so don't expect the same capabilities as popular applications for graphics-heavy documentation. With some up-front time developing good layouts, however, Paligo does manage to create very usable PDF output for customer-facing documents.

Incentivized

• Contentful provides organized, flexible data models with support for a variety of data types and content editors (e.g. WYSIWYGs, form fields, raw text areas).
• Contentful has great built-in versioning features with history and draft states so it's easy to make updates and revert when needed.
• Contentful has an intuitive user interface and good support for multiple spaces (which can be helpful for companies that need separate projects for dev/staging/production).

Incentivized

• The review mode is super convenient. Comparing a snapshot of the previous versions with the current one clearly outlines the respective changes and reduces the necessary content to review tremendously.
• The option to reuse text fragments is another handy feature. Text fragments will be updated whenever the original text fragment is altered is also extremely helpful.
• Managing a content's structure was never easier. An intuitive drag & drop functionality allows you to design your document's structure however you like.
• You can also fork content, in addition to reuse text fragments. This is another helpful option that no longer requires you to create repetetive chapters over and over.

Incentivized

• Preview of changes prior to publishing
• The ability to use a spell check plug-in when working on content (it doesn't work well with Grammarly)

Incentivized

• The amount of CSS/JS required to customize a site's appearance can be cumbersome
• Product documentation can be lacking, specifically with integrations; in some cases, support offered no real help when trying to solve a problem with an integrated service
• Some features require extensive development experience to use, which can sometimes be an obstacle to less-experienced team members

Incentivized

Paligo single-sources beautifully. Allows for customization. Has the best translation features. Has the best support services.

Incentivized

Generally, I'm very happy with Paligo and the productivity gains that I get from using it. There are a few arbitrary limitations on structure, and when applying conditional formatting, that I don't really understand. Unlinking / editing reused text uses this broadly inscrutible colour-coding that I just hate. It would be nice to double-click a component, make edits, then respond to a popup asking if I want to confirm the edit for all linked content, or unlink this instance. Likewise converting from an informal topic insertion to duplicates of its raw contents.

Incentivized

So far, support has been excellent. They reply very quickly and give in-depth replies. Solutions advisors and account managers have also been very responsive and clearly focused on creating the best experience for implementation. And that's only when the answers can't be found in excellent product documentation. The online training class and tutorials are also very good.

Incentivized

Everything went well

Incentivized

Contentful was affordable and much simpler than the Java based systems and preferred over a PHP solution

Incentivized

Paligo gives you the benefits of a fully integrated XML content database, making the whole package much easier to setup and use than a system using Oxygen. It's much easier to set up and far less expensive than Adobe's XML offerings. The cost is comparable to MadCap, but all our content was already in Docbook, so the transition to Paligo was nearly seamless.

Incentivized

• There was no negative impact as such.
• Positive impact is increase in sales.
• More work is delivered due to reusability and other features within a time and less manual effort.

Incentivized

• Positive - has allowed us to create templates for integration documentation. this has greatly sped up our process for creating articles for each of our integrations, which we haven't had up to this point.
• Positive - has created greater alignment between the self-service content team and the marketing team.
• Positive - has introduced a review and feedback workflow for our content creation that was not available in ZenDesk. The feedback directly in the app allows me to pinpoint comments about text and other elements so my writers can address them directly and become better writers in the long term.
• Negative - long ramp up time due to a completely different approach to creating content. My team was training in early August and we have not yet published our new help center (though, to be fair, it is a lot of content that had to be completely rewritten)
• Positive - any UI updates only require updating a single image, which has saved us dozens of hours of updating already.

Incentivized