File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira vs HTML Macro for Confluence

HTML Macro for Confluence edges out File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira on rating (5.0★ vs 4.9★), but the gap is small enough that pricing fit and feature differentiation should drive the decision more than the headline number.

Pricing entry tiers: File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira at From $0/yr, HTML Macro for Confluence at From $0/yr. Check each app's tier structure for the capacity limits you actually need before deciding — the headline number is the same shape, but the gating shape per tier (seats, usage volume, integrations) varies.

Recommended by size: small/early-stage teams who need fast install and low risk should default to HTML Macro for Confluence; mid-market and enterprise teams with specific feature requirements should evaluate both — File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira's 35-review base may include the workflow context that matches your specific use case better than HTML Macro for Confluence's broader-but-shallower coverage.

This verdict is generated from the live marketplace data on this page — rating, review count, pricing tier, and category position all refresh from the canonical Atlassian Marketplace listing every 24 hours. AppRanks does not accept payment to influence comparison outcomes; the methodology is documented on the About page and applies identically to every pair on the site.

Is File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira or HTML Macro for Confluence cheaper?

Both File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira and HTML Macro for Confluence offer paid plans only. File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira starts at From $0/yr; HTML Macro for Confluence starts at From $0/yr. Compare the per-tier features in the Pricing section above before committing.

Which has better reviews, File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira or HTML Macro for Confluence?

HTML Macro for Confluence has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 31 reviews) compared to File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira (4.9★ from 35 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.

Should I choose File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira or HTML Macro for Confluence?

HTML Macro for Confluence holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 4.9★). That is the one dimension AppRanks can separate them on here — read both apps' detail pages for the feature breakdown and recent listing changes.

Which is faster to set up, File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira or HTML Macro for Confluence?

Both apps are one-click installs from the Atlassian Marketplace. File Field | Attachment Custom Fields for Jira has the deeper published review base (35 vs 31), which often — though not always — accompanies better-tested setup docs. AppRanks doesn't measure setup time directly: read the recent reviews on each app's detail page for user-reported install experience.

Which works better for small vs large Atlassian Marketplace teams?