Knowledge Base & Wiki
BlueSpice
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Hallo Welt! GmbH · bluespice.com
Compare with XWiki → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
BlueSpice at a glance
- Vendor
- Hallo Welt! GmbH
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Germany source, captured 1 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates BlueSpice 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. BlueSpice, an enterprise wiki from Hallo Welt! how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 1 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
BlueSpice, an enterprise wiki from Hallo Welt! GmbH of Regensburg built on MediaWiki, scored strongest on sovereignty, ranging 6-8, and portability and hosting, at 6-7. Cloud data is stated to sit in Germany with a European server provider; a GDPR data processing agreement, technical-organizational measures and a subcontractor list are published; an internal BSI C5 audit report covers the cloud; and a documented Confluence migration path plus on-premises editions under a subscription contract make arrival and self-hosting concrete. Access control, at 6-7, rests on SAML, OpenID, LDAP and Kerberos authentication, named identity providers, and a Permission Manager in the pro edition. Knowledge governance is the weakest criterion at 0-3: two judges recorded no rating, and we found no public information on page owners, review intervals, approval workflows or read confirmations — dashboards and maintenance scripts are the nearest facts. Publishing and integrations, at 4-5, is broad internally; we found no public information on help-center publishing or custom domains. The captured pricing pages show no per-user or per-tier figures, only a 30-day free trial of the pro edition.
Speaks for it
- Documented Confluence migration path with a questionnaire, planning meeting, migration script and live macro compatibility check.
- Self-hosting via on-premises editions under a subscription contract, with Docker installation instructions and documented patch and upgrade paths.
- Authentication via SAML, OpenID, LDAP and Kerberos, named identity providers such as Azure AD, Entra ID, Okta and Keycloak, and a Permission Manager in the pro edition.
- Wikipedia-based visual editor with collaborative editing since version 4.5, and central search across all wikis that finds content inside uploaded attachments.
- Cloud data stated to be located in Germany with a European server provider, a published GDPR data processing agreement with technical-organizational measures, and a published internal BSI C5 audit report for the cloud.
Held against it
- We found no public information on page owners, review reminders, approval workflows or read confirmations.
- We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, enforced two-factor authentication or an audit log of access and permission changes.
- We found no public information on help-center publishing, custom domains, webhooks or an in-app widget.
- Migration requires conversion to WikiText with minor manual post-processing, and we found no public information confirming page hierarchy and permissions survive the move.
- We found no public information on a full export with page history in an open format, or on data return and deletion when a contract ends.
Best for
- You are moving documentation off Confluence and want a scripted migration service with a live macro compatibility check.
- You must host the wiki on your own servers and want a German vendor with a published GDPR data processing agreement and subcontractor list.
- Your IT runs single sign-on via SAML, OpenID, LDAP or Kerberos against providers such as Azure AD, Entra ID, Okta or Keycloak.
- You want an open-source MediaWiki foundation with a free edition to pilot before a paid subscription.
Avoid if
- You must demonstrate page-level governance to an auditor or certifier — named owners, review reminders, approval workflows and read confirmations — the bench's weakest criterion, scored 0 to 3.
- Your primary need is a customer-facing help center on a custom domain rather than an internal knowledge base.
- You require ISO 27001 certification today; the vendor states it as planned, with CyberEssentials certified and an internal BSI C5 audit report published instead.
- You need a documented exit — full export with page history in an open format and guaranteed data return at contract end.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Editor, structure & search | 3 of 5 |
| Verification, ownership & freshness | 1.5 of 5 |
| Permissions, SSO & administration | 3 of 5 |
| Help-center publishing & integrations | 2 of 5 |
| Import, export & self-hosting | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3.5 of 5 |
Verification, ownership & freshness
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the content stays true: page owners or experts named per page, verification with a review date and a reminder when it lapses, approval or publishing workflows with drafts and reviewers, read confirmations for mandatory pages, analytics on views, searches without a result and stale pages, duplicate detection, archiving rules, and an audit trail of who changed and approved what.
0 — No way to see who owns a page or when it was last checked beyond the edit date.
3 — Page history and last-edited dates; owners, verification, approvals and content analytics are basic or not described.
5 — An owner or verifier per page, a review interval with reminders, a draft and publish step, page view statistics, and archived pages kept out of search.
8 — Approval workflows with several reviewers, read confirmations for mandatory pages, analytics on failed searches and stale content, duplicate or outdated content flagged automatically, and an exportable audit trail of changes and approvals.
10 — Governance that a regulated organisation runs on: controlled documents with versioned approvals that meet a named standard (ISO 9001, GxP), expiry and review enforced per space, knowledge gaps reported from searches and AI questions, and every published statement traceable to an approved version.
The Operations Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on page owners, review dates and reminders, approval workflows, read confirmations or content analytics. The captured compliance items — a published internal BSI C5 audit report for the cloud, orientation towards BSI IT-Grundschutz and CyberEssentials certification — describe the vendor's own operations, not page-level governance in the wiki, and the documentation pages I read contain nothing on verification or freshness of content. 9 16 17 10
The IT Administrator
After twelve years of Confluence pages I need owners and review cycles, and here the captured pages show only dashboards with key figures and a list of maintenance scripts, including a batch stabilisation script. We found no public information on page owners, verification intervals, approval workflows or read confirmations; the published BSI C5 audit report covers the cloud operation rather than content governance. 15 10 16
The Support Knowledge Manager
For content that must stay true, the captured pages describe little: we found no public information on page owners, review dates with reminders, approval workflows, read confirmations or an audit trail of changes. The nearest facts are dashboards showing key metrics and a published internal audit against the BSI C5 catalog, which speaks to the vendor's own cloud operations rather than the freshness of our articles. 9 15 16
The Engineering Lead
The documented MediaWiki foundation gives pages the standard edit history, and a dashboard feature promises key content and metrics, but that is where the captured pages stop: we found no public information on page owners, review intervals with reminders, approval or read-confirmation workflows, or stale-content and duplicate analytics. The published BSI C5 audit report concerns the vendor's cloud operation, not whether the content itself stays true. 5 15 16
The Quality Manager
This is the part my certifier would ask about first, and the captured pages offer almost nothing: a maintenance script named batchStabilize and dashboards showing key figures are all that touch the content lifecycle. I found no public information on named page owners, review dates with reminders, approval or draft-review workflows, read confirmations for mandatory pages, stale-content analytics, or an exportable audit trail of who changed and approved what. 10 15
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on page owners or named experts, verification with review dates and reminders, approval or publishing workflows, read confirmations, or content analytics such as views, failed searches and stale-page reporting. The audit material we did read — a BSI C5 criteria-catalog audit report for BlueSpice Cloud, CyberEssentials certification, ISO 27001 planned — concerns the vendor's own operation, not content governance in the product. 9 16 17
Permissions, SSO & administration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who may see and edit what, and how the administrator keeps control: roles and permissions per space and per page, restricted or private pages, guest and external access, groups synced from Azure AD/Entra ID, Google Workspace or LDAP, single sign-on (SAML, OIDC), SCIM provisioning, two-factor authentication enforced, an audit log of access and permission changes, and admin controls over sharing and public links. Where the data is hosted and certifications are scored under sovereignty.
0 — Everyone in a workspace sees and edits everything; no permissions of any kind.
3 — Admins, members and guests, or private and shared pages; per-space or per-page rights, SSO and an audit log are basic or not described.
5 — Permissions per space and per page, guest access with limits, single sign-on through Google or Microsoft, two-factor authentication, groups, and admin control over public sharing.
8 — SAML or OIDC single sign-on with any identity provider, SCIM provisioning or LDAP and directory group sync, enforced 2FA, an audit log of views, edits and permission changes, IP or domain restrictions, and permissions honoured by search and AI answers.
10 — Access control an enterprise auditor accepts as documented: granular roles with inheritance explained, just-in-time and external access with expiry, every access and permission change logged and exportable to a SIEM, and the permission model published with its limits.
The Operations Lead
Authentication via SAML, OpenID, Kerberos and LDAP is stated, together with a long list of identity providers customers use — Azure AD and Entra ID, Okta, Keycloak, ADFS and more — which answers the single sign-on questions our IT will ask. The Permission Manager in the pro edition lets admins view the individual permissions of a role such as editor, and rights management is described as central for enterprise customers; we found no public information on SCIM provisioning, enforced two-factor authentication or an audit log of access and permission changes. 7 18 19 9
The IT Administrator
Single sign-on is documented via SAML, OpenID, Kerberos and LDAP with identity providers including Microsoft Entra ID, Azure AD, Okta and Keycloak, and the Permission Manager exposes each role's individual permissions — that covers our Entra ID sign-in. We found no public information on directory group synchronisation, SCIM provisioning, enforced two-factor authentication, or an exportable audit log of access and permission changes, which is exactly what our auditor will ask for. 7 18 9
The Support Knowledge Manager
Authentication standards SAML, OpenID, LDAP and Kerberos and a long list of identity providers from Entra ID to Keycloak and Okta, together with a Permission Manager where the individual rights of a role such as editor can be inspected, read like an enterprise deployment. We found no public information on SCIM provisioning, enforced two-factor authentication, an access audit log or IP restrictions, which keeps it below the top level. 7 9 18 19
The Engineering Lead
The Permission Manager in the pro edition exposes the individual permissions of each role — the vendor walks through the editor role in a screenshot — and rights management is positioned as central to their enterprise customers. Authentication is documented against SAML, OpenID, LDAP and Kerberos, with thirteen named identity providers including Azure AD, Entra ID, Okta and Keycloak, which covers the identity stack we run. We found no public information on enforced two-factor authentication, SCIM or directory group sync, audit logs of access and permission changes, or IP restrictions. 7 18 19 9
The Quality Manager
The Permission Manager in the pro edition lets an administrator inspect the individual permissions of a role such as editor, authentication runs via SAML, LDAP, OpenID and Kerberos against named providers including Azure AD, Entra ID, Active Directory, Okta and Keycloak, and access is protected by individual credentials and SSL. I found no public information on enforced two-factor authentication, SCIM provisioning, guest or external access, or an audit log of views, edits and permission changes, which is what I would need before drafts could live here. 2 3 7 9 18 19
The Skeptic
A Permission Manager with role-based rights, published screenshots of an editor role's individual permissions, and authentication via SAML, OpenID, LDAP and Kerberos against everything from Azure AD and Entra ID to Keycloak and Okta are documented, with administration of rights and access protection described as traceable. Guest access limits, enforced two-factor authentication, SCIM provisioning, and an audit log of access and permission changes are not described on the pages I read. 7 9 18 19
Help-center publishing & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How knowledge reaches people outside the editor: public or password-protected sites and help centers with a custom domain, branding and SEO controls, an in-app widget or contextual help, ticket deflection in a help desk, multilingual publishing, integrations with Slack, Microsoft Teams, Jira, Google Drive, help desks and CRMs, a browser extension, a documented REST or GraphQL API, webhooks, and an MCP server or connector for AI assistants.
0 — Content cannot be shared beyond the editor and nothing connects to it.
3 — Sharing a page by public link and a few integrations such as Slack; a branded help center, an API and webhooks are basic or not described.
5 — A published site or help center with custom domain and branding, integrations with Slack or Teams and Google Drive or Microsoft 365, a documented API, and embeds of common tools.
8 — A help center with SEO controls, multilingual publishing, access for logged-in customers and analytics, a widget or contextual help inside the customer's product, help desk integration with ticket deflection, webhooks, and a connector or MCP server for AI assistants.
10 — Knowledge delivered wherever it is needed from one source: internal and public audiences served from the same pages with per-audience rules, a complete API with SDKs and rate limits stated, a marketplace of integrations, and every channel measured in one report.
The Operations Lead
The integration catalogue is broad — Slack, Microsoft Teams and Rocket.Chat for chat, Google and Microsoft documents placed on pages, Jira, OpenProject and YouTrack for tasks, plus ServiceNow, GitHub and Gitlab — and the Galaxy API is described for custom integrations and automation, with AI services including Azure OpenAI, ChatGPT, deepL and a self-hosted Ollama option. We found no public information on help-center publishing, custom domains, an in-app widget or ticket deflection, which is what our service hotline would need for customers. 7 20
The IT Administrator
The integration catalogue is broad and named: Slack, Teams and Rocket.Chat; Jira, OpenProject and YouTrack; Google and Microsoft documents; Draw.io, LucidChart and Grafana; ServiceNow; plus the Galaxy API for custom integrations and AI services ranging from Azure OpenAI and ChatGPT to a local Ollama. We found no public information on a branded help center with custom domain, an in-product widget, webhooks or an MCP connector for AI assistants. 7 20
The Support Knowledge Manager
The integration story is broad and real: a documented Galaxy API, Slack, Teams, Jira, ServiceNow, Google and Microsoft document embeds, and AI services from Azure OpenAI to Ollama — the connective tissue my help desk would need. We found no public information on help-center publishing with a custom domain, an in-product widget, webhooks or a connector for AI assistants, so the customer-facing half of this picture stays open. 7 20
The Engineering Lead
The integration catalogue matches my shortlist: Slack and Teams for chat, Jira, OpenProject and YouTrack for task links, Google and Office documents embedded, GitHub, GitLab and ServiceNow, search options via OpenSearch and iFinder, and AI providers from Azure OpenAI down to a self-hosted Ollama. The Galaxy API is documented for custom integrations, custom extensions, external data retrieval and automation. For the external-facing side, we found no public information on a published help-center site, custom domains, SEO controls, webhooks or a connector for AI assistants. 7 20
The Quality Manager
The pages document a Galaxy API for custom integrations, custom extensions, external data retrieval and automation, alongside integrations for Slack, Teams, Rocket.Chat, Jira and other task systems, Google and Microsoft documents, ServiceNow and specialist search engines. I found no public information on a branded help center or public site with a custom domain, webhooks, ticket deflection or a connector for AI assistants, so nothing here speaks to serving people outside the wiki. 7 20
The Skeptic
The integration half is broad and real: Slack, Teams, Jira, ServiceNow, Google and Microsoft documents, GitHub, enterprise search via iFinder and OpenSearch, and a documented Galaxy API for custom integrations, external data and automation. On the publishing half I found no public information on a branded help center, public sites, custom domains, SEO controls, an in-app widget, webhooks or a connector for AI assistants — and that is the half that reaches people outside the editor. 7 20
Import, export & self-hosting
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What arriving and leaving would cost: import from Confluence, Notion, Google Docs, Word and Markdown with structure, attachments and links kept, a full export of every space in an open format (Markdown, HTML, XML, PDF) with attachments and history, an API that reaches all content, a stated migration path from Confluence Server or Data Center, open-source code under a named licence, and a self-hosted or on-premise edition with its own documentation.
0 — Content cannot be imported or exported; it can only be read in the vendor's interface.
3 — Single pages export to PDF or Word and some files can be imported; a full export, a Confluence import and self-hosting are basic or not described.
5 — Import from Confluence or Notion and from Word or Markdown, a full workspace export to Markdown or HTML with attachments, a documented API covering pages, and a stated retention of data after cancellation.
8 — A Confluence migration tool or service that keeps hierarchy, permissions and attachments, a full export with history in an open format, a self-hosted or on-premise edition with installation and update documentation, and data returned or deleted on termination under stated terms.
10 — The customer owns the content end to end: open-source code under a named licence that runs fully self-hosted with feature parity stated, a complete export another tool can import without loss, and the deletion of every copy on termination documented.
The Operations Lead
Arriving is well documented: a Confluence migration path with a whitepaper, a migration questionnaire and planning meeting, script-based transfer of segmented data with images and documents linked, and MediaWiki XML or CSV imports through special pages or a server script; staying on our own servers is possible too, with the on-premises editions Sky, Sapphire and Indigo, Docker installation instructions and documented patch and upgrade paths. The captured pages state that migration requires conversion to WikiText and minor manual post-processing, and we found no public information on a full export with page history in an open format or on data return when a contract ends. 6 21 22 3 10
The IT Administrator
This meets my core need: a Confluence migration path with a live macro compatibility check, a migration script that moves macros and content automatically, a questionnaire and planning meeting, segmentation into wiki articles with images and documents linked, and an honest note that minor manual post-processing may be needed. On-premises editions under a subscription contract come with installation, Docker and update documentation on a free open-source base. We found no public information confirming that page hierarchy and permissions survive the move, on full export formats, or on data return at termination. 6 22 21 3 10 5
The Support Knowledge Manager
Self-hosting is the strong card: on-premises editions on a subscription, installation and update documentation with Docker instructions, a documented migration path from MediaWiki, and open-source Galaxy code. Confluence migration is offered as a service with a script, a live macro check and a planning questionnaire, though the pages describe segmentation and WikiText conversion with minor manual post-processing rather than guaranteeing hierarchy and permissions intact. We found no public information on a full export with history in an open format or on data return and deletion at the end of a contract. 3 5 6 10 22
The Engineering Lead
I have moved a team's documentation twice, and their migration story is genuinely documented: a questionnaire and planning meeting, a migration script that transfers Confluence macros and content automatically, a live macro compatibility check, a whitepaper for leaving Confluence Data Center, and an honest note that minor manual post-processing may still be needed. Self-hosting is first-class — four installation types, Docker instructions for version 5, documented patch and upgrade paths, maintenance scripts, an open-source edition, and a stated path to move cloud data to an on-premises system. We found no public information on a complete export with history in an open format, the licence name of the open-source edition, or data return and deletion when a contract ends. 6 22 10 3 5
The Quality Manager
Arriving and staying are well covered: a documented on-premises edition the customer hosts, with Docker installation instructions, upgrade paths and four installation types, an open-source Galaxy edition, bulk import through MediaWiki XML and CSV via special pages in the interface, and a vendor-run Confluence migration service with a compatibility script, live macro check, questionnaire and planning meeting. I found no public information on a full export including page history in an open format, or on data return and deletion when a contract ends, so the exit cost is only partly computable. 3 5 6 10 21 22
The Skeptic
Arriving is well covered: a Confluence migration service with a compatibility script and a live macro check, MediaWiki XML and CSV import via special pages or server-side scripts, and a documented on-premises path (Docker-only install for version 5, upgrade paths up to 5.1, four installation types) on an open-source Galaxy base. Leaving is where the pages go quiet: a full export's contents and whether history travels with it are not described, data return or deletion on termination is not described, and the FAQ shows the question of moving cloud data to on-premises without showing the answer — a buyer plans an exit on undocumented terms. 3 5 6 10 21 22
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where pages, attachments and search indexes are stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, CDN, search, email, support, payment, and the AI model provider that reads pages for answers and summaries, with whether content is used for training). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; a wiki holds internal processes, customer data and trade secrets, so the whole chain counts, not only the database. A self-hosted or open-source edition the customer runs on its own European servers counts as the customer's chain, whatever the vendor's seat.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.
5 — EU data residency available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (CDN, search, email, support, AI model) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard, or EU residency is limited to the higher tiers.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations including the AI model provider, no training on customer content stated, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated — or a self-hosted edition documented that keeps every page on the customer's own servers.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor including AI, or a self-hosted open-source edition with no call home, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.
The Operations Lead
The vendor is a German company in Regensburg with full register details, cloud data is stated to be located in Germany with a European server provider, and a GDPR data processing agreement with technical-organizational measures and a subcontractor list is published, with transfers to providers such as Cloudflare covered by EU standard contractual clauses. CyberEssentials certification is stated and an internal BSI C5 audit report for the cloud is published while ISO 27001 is described as planned, and a documented self-hosted open-source route exists; we found no public information naming the hosting infrastructure, the AI model provider's role and location, or whether customer content is used for training. 11 4 12 9 13 16 5 3
The IT Administrator
Hallo Welt! GmbH is registered at the local court in Regensburg, Germany, the cloud is documented as hosted in Germany with a European server provider under EU standards, and a data processing agreement with technical-organisational measures and a subcontractor list is published on the legal page. A BSI C5 criteria-catalog audit report for the cloud is published, CyberEssentials certification is stated with ISO 27001 planned; and if the works council asks, the on-premises edition runs the wiki on our own servers. We found no public information on where the AI providers process wiki content or whether content is used for model training. 11 4 9 16 3 5
The Support Knowledge Manager
Hallo Welt! GmbH is a Regensburg company with a full imprint, the cloud keeps data in Germany with a European server provider, and customers can download a GDPR data processing agreement, technical measures and a subcontractor list from the legal pages. Transfers to the US ride on standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules, and an internal BSI C5 audit report for the cloud is published, though ISO 27001 is only planned. The infrastructure provider goes unnamed, and we found no public information on the AI model chain that would read our pages or on training with customer content. 4 9 11 12 16
The Engineering Lead
Hallo Welt! GmbH is registered in Regensburg with a commercial register number and VAT ID, cloud data is stated to sit in Germany with a European server provider under EU-standard hosting, and a data processing agreement with technical-organisational measures and a subcontractor list is published on the legal pages. Subprocessors are named with locations and stated safeguards — EU standard contractual clauses for Cloudflare, binding corporate rules for Zendesk — a BSI C5 audit report is published for the cloud, and a self-hosted edition keeps every page on the customer's own servers. We found no public information on the hosting provider by name, the AI model provider in the processing chain or training on customer content, and ISO 27001 is stated as planned rather than certified. 11 4 12 16 3
The Quality Manager
The legal notice names Hallo Welt! GmbH in Regensburg with a German commercial register number and VAT ID, the cloud pages state that customer data sits in Germany with a European server provider, and a GDPR data processing agreement with technical-organisational measures and a subcontractor list is published on the legal pages, with a BSI C5 audit report released and CyberEssentials certified while ISO 27001 remains planned. The server provider itself is not named, website services such as Cloudflare run under standard contractual clauses, and I found no public information on which AI model provider would read pages or whether content is used for training; a documented self-hosted edition lets a regulated customer keep every page on own servers. 3 4 9 11 12 13 16 17
The Skeptic
Much of the chain is provable: Hallo Welt! GmbH registered at Regensburg local court, cloud data stated to sit in Germany with a European server provider under EU-standard hosting, a published data processing agreement with technical-organisational measures and a subcontractor list, a published BSI C5 audit report, and a self-hosted open-source edition that keeps the wiki on the customer's own servers. What holds it back: the cloud infrastructure is not named, ISO 27001 is only planned, and the subprocessor locations with stated transfer bases come from the website privacy policy and include transfers to the USA under standard contractual clauses. Nothing states which AI provider reads customer pages for answers or whether content is used for training. 3 4 5 7 9 11 12 16
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per user and tier, readers or guests free or charged, minimum seats, which features (SSO, SCIM, audit log, verification, help-center publishing, custom domain, AI answers, EU data residency) cost extra, the free tier and its limits, storage limits, the self-hosted edition's licence and support price, minimum term and setup or migration fees.
0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.
3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with users, readers or features is unclear.
5 — Tiers are public with their price per user and main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, AI, readers or guests, EU residency, the self-hosted edition) is unpriced or "on request".
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its scaling rule (editors, readers, guests, storage), add-ons priced, the self-hosted edition's licence and support cost stated, minimum seats, term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of editors and readers and a feature set, with every add-on, AI credit, setup, migration and support fee and the cancellation and data-return terms published.
The Operations Lead
The captured pages confirm a 30-day free trial of the pro edition with all features and free trial data transfer to a licensed version, a free personal consultation, and named on-premises subscription editions Sky, Sapphire and Indigo under a subscription contract. We found no per-user or per-tier prices, reader or guest charges, storage limits, minimum terms or the on-premises licence cost in the captured facts, so I cannot compute the annual cost for 180 people, let alone for read-only workshop access. 3 4 13
The IT Administrator
A 30-day free trial of the pro edition with all features and a free open-source edition are documented, but we found no public price per user, tier prices for the cloud, or licence and support costs for the on-premises subscription editions. I cannot compute an annual cost for 900 staff from the captured pages, so this sits at the low band despite the clear edition structure. 3 4 5 8
The Support Knowledge Manager
A free open-source edition and a thirty-day trial of the pro edition with all features are public, and the on-premises editions are named, but the captured pricing pages show no per-user or per-tier figures. Without prices for readers, guests, support or the self-hosted licence, my annual cost for twenty-five editors is not computable from public pages alone. 3 4 5 8
The Engineering Lead
The captured pages document a 30-day free trial of the pro edition with all features, a free consultation, and on-premises editions sold under a subscription contract — but we found no public information on per-user or per-tier prices, including on the vendor's own price-configuration page as captured. How cost scales with editors, readers, SSO, AI or the self-hosted licence is not stated, so a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from public pages. 3 4 8
The Quality Manager
A 30-day free trial with all pro features, a free open-source edition and on-premises editions supplied under a subscription contract are what the captured pages state publicly. No per-user or per-tier figures appear on any page I read, so the annual cost for a given number of editors, or what single sign-on, AI or data residency would add, cannot be computed; a free personal consultation is offered instead. 3 4 5 8
The Skeptic
A thirty-day free trial of the pro edition with all features and a free open-source edition are the only cost facts I found; the on-premises subscription editions are named, but their prices are not. We found no public information on per-user prices, how readers or guests are counted, tier inclusions, storage limits, minimum seats or terms, or the self-hosted licence and support cost — a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from these pages alone. 3 4 5 8
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about BlueSpice
Is BlueSpice European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies BlueSpice as EU-Made.
Where does BlueSpice store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Germany as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Nov 2026.
Does BlueSpice have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to BlueSpice?
As of 1 Nov 2026, the panel rates Document360 (3.5/5), BookStack (3/5) and XWiki (3/5) highest among the other 13 Knowledge Base & Wiki products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Document360 (UK / wider Europe). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: BlueSpice alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data processing agreement, Legal entity, Hosting options. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 40 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 12 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (22)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Features page bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Features page (on-premises edition) bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Features page (cloud hosting) bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Features page (open source) bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Features page (Confluence migration) bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Integrations page bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Pricing page bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Security page bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Documentation (installation) en.wiki.bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Legal notice bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Privacy policy bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 13 Contracts and terms bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 14 Editor, structure & search — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 15 Editor, structure & search — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 16 Verification, ownership & freshness — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 17 Verification, ownership & freshness — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 18 Permissions, SSO & administration — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 19 Permissions, SSO & administration — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 20 Help-center publishing & integrations — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 21 Import, export & self-hosting — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
- 22 Import, export & self-hosting — found from sitemap bluespice.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →