Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira vs HTML Macro for Confluence

Based on the data on this page, HTML Macro for Confluence is the stronger choice for most Atlassian Marketplace teams — 5.0★ vs Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira's 4.6★ is a meaningful gap that usually reflects real product or support quality differences across the user base.

Pricing entry tiers: Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing 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 — Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira's 37-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 Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira or HTML Macro for Confluence cheaper?

Both Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira and HTML Macro for Confluence offer paid plans only. Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing 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, Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira or HTML Macro for Confluence?

HTML Macro for Confluence has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 31 reviews) compared to Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira (4.6★ from 37 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.

Should I choose Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira or HTML Macro for Confluence?

HTML Macro for Confluence holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 4.6★). 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, Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira or HTML Macro for Confluence?

Both apps are one-click installs from the Atlassian Marketplace. Magic Estimations - Async and Planning Poker sizing for Jira has the deeper published review base (37 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.