Knowledge scattered across files, chats and people's heads? WZ-IT sets up enterprise wikis, connects them to your identities and provides managed hosting and ongoing operations. Discuss your setup
Anyone selecting an enterprise wiki finds four serious open-source candidates and plenty of comparisons written mostly by vendors of competing products.
One such comparison currently circulates a claim that can be checked and does not hold: that Wiki.js has stalled, its last commit months old. The repository was updated on 24 August 2026. The real situation is different, and more important for the decision than the false version would be.
This article assesses the four by licence, structure, feature boundaries and operational effort. All figures from the repositories and project pages, as of 24 August 2026; versions, licence tiers and migration paths updated on 12 October 2026.
Table of contents
- The four at a glance
- Wiki.js: what is actually the case
- Licences and feature boundaries
- Structure: the underrated difference
- BookStack
- Docmost
- XWiki
- Wiki.js
- Which system for which situation
- What a feature comparison does not answer
- How we approach this at WZ-IT
- Further guides
The four at a glance
Figures from the public repositories, as of 24 August 2026.
| System | GitHub stars | Licence | Foundation | Last updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wiki.js | 28,789 | AGPL-3.0 | Node.js, PostgreSQL | 24 Aug 2026 |
| Docmost | 21,450 | AGPL-3.0 | Node.js, PostgreSQL | 24 Aug 2026 |
| BookStack | 19,002 | MIT | PHP, MySQL | 24 Aug 2026 |
| XWiki | 1,301 | LGPL-2.1 | Java, relational database | 24 Aug 2026 |
All four repositories were updated on the same day. None of the projects is abandoned.
XWiki's star count is misleading. The project has run since 2007 and spreads across many repositories; a single repository's figure does not reflect adoption.
Wiki.js: what is actually the case
Because inaccurate claims circulate, here is the verified position.
The repository is active. Last updated 24 August 2026, like the other three.
Releases in the 2.x line have stretched out. The current version is v2.5.315 from 21 September 2026, preceded by v2.5.314 on 1 May, v2.5.313 on 27 April and v2.5.312 on 12 February (Wiki.js releases). The interval between releases has grown noticeably.
Version 3.0 has been under way since 2021. Announced in 2021, a Developer Preview in October 2022, then a long alpha phase. A beta is now available, currently 3.0.0-beta.651 from 11 October 2026. The beta, too, is explicitly not intended for production according to the release notes ("Not for production use"). A Confluence import is present as a menu item in the beta but still disabled as "coming soon".
What follows: Wiki.js is neither dead software nor a mistake. But anyone starting today starts on 2.x and accepts a version migration whose timing and effort nobody can quantify. That is a real factor in a decision that lasts years, and it is something different from "the project is dead".
Licences and feature boundaries
| System | Licence | Restricted portion |
|---|---|---|
| BookStack | MIT | none |
| XWiki | LGPL-2.1 | Pro apps and Confluence Migration Toolkit paid, core unrestricted |
| Wiki.js | AGPL-3.0 | none |
| Docmost | AGPL-3.0 | Business and Enterprise tiers, including SSO, page permissions and Confluence import |
Docmost maintains the paid Business and Enterprise tiers alongside the open-source Community Edition. Business costs USD 6 per user per month billed annually, minimum 10 users; SSO with SAML, OIDC and LDAP, MFA, page permissions and the Confluence import are only available from this tier (Docmost pricing, as of October 2026). Which features sit in which tier we broke down in a separate article. The same advice applies as anywhere such a boundary runs: check which side your required features sit on, then decide.
The other three raise no such question. AGPL-3.0 for Wiki.js requires disclosure of modifications when provided over a network, which is generally unproblematic for internal operation without redistribution.
Structure: the underrated difference
The point that decides usefulness after two years, and which barely features in comparisons.
BookStack enforces a hierarchy: shelves hold books, books hold chapters, chapters hold pages. There are no further levels. That removes freedom, and therein lies the benefit: a wiki without a prescribed structure becomes, without consistent curation, a collection in which nobody finds anything.
Docmost, Wiki.js and XWiki use free page trees. More flexible, and requiring somebody who owns the ordering.
The question before selection is therefore not "which can do more" but: is there somebody who maintains the structure? If not, a prescribed hierarchy is an advantage rather than a limitation.
BookStack
BookStack is licensed under MIT, has 19,002 stars and is based on PHP and MySQL. It is the leanest of the four systems to operate and starts with a single Docker command.
Strength: the fixed hierarchy, modest resource needs, straightforward updates, no feature boundary. For teams without a dedicated wiki owner it is the lowest-risk choice.
Limit: no simultaneous editing of a document in the style of modern editors, fewer extension options than XWiki. How it fares against Confluence we covered separately.
Docmost
Docmost is licensed under AGPL-3.0, has 21,450 stars and is based on Node.js and PostgreSQL. It is the youngest of the four systems, with a block-based editor and simultaneous editing by several people.
Strength: the most modern interface of the four, closest to what teams know from commercial tools.
Limit: the youngest project with the smallest ecosystem, and the split into the free Community Edition and the paid Business and Enterprise tiers belongs checked before deciding.
XWiki
XWiki is licensed under LGPL-2.1, written in Java and has been in development since 2007. It is the most capable and simultaneously most demanding of the four systems.
Strength: structured data within pages, extensive extensibility, proven in large installations. Where a wiki should be more than text, for instance with custom data structures and forms, XWiki is the only one of the four that reaches there.
Limit: Java operation with corresponding resource needs, the steepest learning curve, and considerably oversized for a team of twenty.
Wiki.js
Wiki.js is licensed under AGPL-3.0, has 28,789 stars and is therefore the most-watched of the four systems. It is based on Node.js and PostgreSQL and offers an attractive interface with broad integration options for identities and storage backends.
Strength: good usability, many integrations, active community.
Limit: the state of 3.0 development described above. Anyone making a decision for the next five years should weigh that point deliberately rather than skip it.
Which system for which situation
| Starting point | Obvious choice | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| No dedicated wiki owner, order has to hold | BookStack | prescribed hierarchy, lowest operational effort |
| Team coming from Notion or Confluence, wants simultaneous editing | Docmost | block-based editor, check the feature boundary first |
| Large installation, structured data, extensions | XWiki | the only one with that depth, proven since 2007 |
| Many integrations wanted, version situation consciously accepted | Wiki.js | strong integrations, budget for the 3.0 question |
| Public documentation alongside an internal area | BookStack or Wiki.js | both with separated permission areas |
What a feature comparison does not answer
Who maintains the content? A wiki without named ownership goes stale within a year and is then bypassed. That is independent of the system and the most common reason wiki rollouts fail.
How does content get in? Migrating from an existing wiki usually transfers text reliably and attachments, permissions, cross-references and version history rarely. The effort almost never lies in the text. One exception is the path from Confluence to XWiki: the paid Confluence Migration Toolkit also migrates permissions, page history and attachments. Which path applies to which system, and which deadlines run for Confluence Data Center, is covered in the guide Confluence Data Center end of life: migrating to an open-source wiki.
Who updates it? A wiki often holds more operational knowledge than any other internal application, including things that should not be there. An unpatched instance reachable from the internet is correspondingly sensitive.
What happens if it is lost? Backup with tested restore is particularly easy to forget with wikis, because they rarely fail noticeably. It is noticed when somebody wants to look something up.
Still unsure which tool fits? In the wiki selection you try all candidates as demo instances and receive a decision paper with license costs and migration path. From €3,900 excl. VAT, credited against the rollout.
How we approach this at WZ-IT
We set up all four and decide not by feature count but by two questions: who maintains the structure, and where does the content come from.
Where there is no dedicated owner we recommend BookStack, because the enforced hierarchy takes on part of that job. Where a team arrives from a modern editor and expects simultaneous editing, Docmost is closer to the expectation. We recommend XWiki where a wiki genuinely has to carry structured data, and not as a default answer.
With Wiki.js we name the version situation before the decision. That is not an exclusion, but it belongs on the table before content moves in.
What we set up regardless of system is integration with existing identities. A wiki with its own user management alongside everything else gets forgotten when people join or leave.
Further guides
- Confluence Data Center end of life - deadlines until 2029 and migration paths per system
- BookStack as a Confluence alternative - the comparison against the commercial incumbent
- Docmost Community versus Enterprise Edition - where the feature boundary runs
- BookStack, Docmost, Wiki.js and XWiki - the systems individually
- Managed open source - setup, integration and operations
Unclear which system fits how your team works? We review team, content and existing identities and set up the fitting system including integration. Book a call
