HTML Macro for Confluence vs Awesome Custom Fields – Custom Fields for Jira & JSM

HTML Macro for Confluence and Awesome Custom Fields – Custom Fields for Jira & JSM are evenly matched on rating (5.0★ vs 5.0★) — the differentiator comes down to pricing fit, feature breadth, and which app's interaction pattern suits your team's workflow.

Pricing entry tiers: HTML Macro for Confluence at From $0/yr, Awesome Custom Fields – Custom Fields for Jira & JSM 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 evaluation path: install both apps' free tiers (where available) and run them in parallel on a small cohort for 7-14 days before committing. The data tables below show the per-feature breakdown — for most teams the deciding factor will be a single integration or workflow detail that's hard to compare from listing pages alone.

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 Awesome Custom Fields – Custom Fields for Jira & JSM cheaper?

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

Which has better reviews, HTML Macro for Confluence or Awesome Custom Fields – Custom Fields for Jira & JSM?

HTML Macro for Confluence (5.0★, 31 reviews) and Awesome Custom Fields – Custom Fields for Jira & JSM (5.0★, 27 reviews) are essentially tied on rating. Look at review velocity and individual reviewer quotes — both visible on each app's detail page — to differentiate.

Should I choose HTML Macro for Confluence or Awesome Custom Fields – Custom Fields for Jira & JSM?

HTML Macro for Confluence holds the higher average rating (5.0★ vs 5.0★). 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 Awesome Custom Fields – Custom Fields for Jira & JSM?

Both apps are one-click installs from the Atlassian Marketplace. HTML Macro for Confluence has the deeper published review base (31 vs 27), 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?