HTML Macro for Confluence vs External Share for Jira

HTML Macro for Confluence edges out External Share for Jira on rating (5.0★ vs 4.7★), but the gap is small enough that pricing fit and feature differentiation should drive the decision more than the headline number.

Pricing entry tiers: HTML Macro for Confluence at From $0/yr, External Share for Jira at From $1/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 — External Share for Jira's 39-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 HTML Macro for Confluence or External Share for Jira cheaper?

Both HTML Macro for Confluence and External Share for Jira offer paid plans only. HTML Macro for Confluence starts at From $0/yr; External Share for Jira starts at From $1/yr. Compare the per-tier features in the Pricing section above before committing.

Which has better reviews, HTML Macro for Confluence or External Share for Jira?

HTML Macro for Confluence has the higher average rating (5.0★ from 31 reviews) compared to External Share for Jira (4.7★ from 39 reviews). Both are tracked daily by AppRanks, so the figures here update each refresh cycle.

Should I choose HTML Macro for Confluence or External Share for Jira?

HTML Macro for Confluence holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 4.7★). 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, HTML Macro for Confluence or External Share for Jira?

Both apps are one-click installs from the Atlassian Marketplace. External Share for Jira has the deeper published review base (39 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?

HTML Macro for Confluence typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (31 reviews). External Share for Jira typically suits early-stage and growth-mode teams based on its published review base (39 reviews). A larger review base generally means the app has been exercised at scale — relevant if you are processing high volume or handling enterprise compliance requirements.