This guide is for Confluence admins, compliance owners, and product operations teams that need to select an approval workflow app without getting buried in marketing claims.
Most comparison pages either oversimplify the differences or optimize for one metric only, usually the list price at one user tier. In practice, real decisions usually come from a combination of factors: how version approvals work in your authoring process, how much configuration overhead your admins can absorb, how your auditors evaluate trail quality, and how your monthly bill changes as your workspace grows.
The goal here is to keep a visual “one-page comparison sheet” format while making the underlying claims defensible. Every numeric competitor claim in this post is validated against Atlassian Marketplace cloud listing data captured on February 24, 2026. ApprovalFlow pricing is based on the current published list price: $0.40/user/month with the first 10 users free.
To keep this useful for buyers, this post does not present one tool as universally best. Instead, it explains where each option is stronger and where each option introduces tradeoffs that matter at deployment time.
Methodology
This comparison uses four source categories:
- Atlassian Marketplace overview pages for Comala and AppFox.
- Atlassian Marketplace live pricing API data for Comala and AppFox cloud tiers (
perUnitItemsfor monthly per-user tiers plusitemsfor entry-tier monthly blocks). - Flowdence ApprovalFlow product documentation and policy pages.
- Explicitly stated ApprovalFlow list pricing you provided for this post.
How claims were handled:
- If a feature is directly and clearly documented by a vendor, it is marked as supported.
- If a related capability is documented but wording does not exactly match the comparison label, it is marked as partial (
~) with a short clarification. - If a claim could not be responsibly verified from public documentation, it is not asserted as a firm yes.
This is important because feature words like “version approval,” “global templates,” and “residency compliance” are often defined differently by different vendors.
Confluence Approval Tools Compared
A side-by-side look at three approval workflow apps for Confluence Cloud: features, pricing, architecture, and ideal use cases.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Comala Document Mgmt |
ApprovalFlow by Flowdence |
AppFox Workflows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Page-level approvals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Version-level approvalsApprove specific page versions | ~Related controls documented, not described with this exact label | ✓Per-page-version tracking documented | ~Versioning language present, not identical wording |
| Audit trail | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Simple setupUp and running in minutes | ~Feature-rich enterprise workflow configuration model | ✓Space-scoped setup documented with quick-start flows | ~Visual builder + broader automation surface |
| Forge-nativePlatform and processing model | —Connect scopes in Marketplace cloud deployment data | ✓Flowdence docs state Forge-hosted processing and no external egress endpoints | —Connect scopes in Marketplace cloud deployment data |
| Visual workflow builder | ~Workflow automation documented; visual-builder wording not explicit | — | ✓ |
| E-signatures | ✓ | — | ✓ |
| Document expiry / expiration | ~Timed review-cycle language documented | — | ✓Page expiration language documented |
| Global workflow templates or reuse | ~Reusable governance workflow patterns documented | — | ~Global workflow search and bulk apply documented |
| Data residency posture | ~Connect cloud app model; controls depend on vendor architecture and contractual posture | ✓Forge-native + no external egress declared in app policy docs | ~Connect cloud app model; controls depend on vendor architecture and contractual posture |
| Free tier available | ✓1-10 users = $0 monthly block | ✓Up to 10 users free | —1-10 users = $10 monthly block |
Page-level approvals
Version-level approvals
Audit trail
Workflow style and setup
Pricing entry tier
Pricing Overview
Comala Document Mgmt
by Appfire
$2.15 /user/mo
11-100 user tier. 1-10 users are free. Marketplace installs: 6,304.
ApprovalFlow
by Flowdence
$0.40 /user/mo
First 10 users free. Flat per-user list price beyond the free tier.
AppFox Workflows
by AppFox
$1.26 /user/mo
11-100 user tier. 1-10 users are a $10 monthly block. Marketplace installs: 1,065.
Best Fit
Comala Document Mgmt
- Large teams needing governance-heavy document lifecycle controls
- Organizations requiring e-signatures and audit-ready review history
- Teams that want broad workflow automation in Appfire's ecosystem
ApprovalFlow by Flowdence
- Teams needing approvals tied to specific page versions
- Security-conscious organizations preferring Forge-hosted processing
- Budget-minded teams that need free-entry plus low per-user pricing
AppFox Workflows
- Teams that want a visual workflow builder as a first-class authoring tool
- Organizations needing trigger-based automations and expiration controls
- Mid-size teams with moderate-to-high process complexity
Ready to simplify your approvals?
Try ApprovalFlow free for teams up to 10 users. No credit card, no complex setup, just approvals that work.
Comparison date: February 24, 2026. Competitor pricing and install counts are from Atlassian Marketplace cloud listing data crawled on that date. ApprovalFlow pricing in this post uses the current Flowdence list price: $0.40/user/month with first 10 users free.
Feature Tradeoffs in Practice
A feature table is useful for orientation, but it is rarely enough to drive a purchase decision. In real deployments, teams are usually choosing between three different operating models:
- A governance-heavy model where workflows are deeply configurable and compliance controls are broad.
- A simplicity-first model where the team needs clear approvals without adding heavy operational overhead.
- A builder-driven automation model where process flexibility and triggers are primary goals.
Comala, ApprovalFlow, and AppFox each map to one of these patterns more naturally, and that is why direct row-by-row feature parity can be misleading if read without context.
Version-aware approval handling
If your publishing process depends on approving a specific revision of a page, version-awareness is usually non-negotiable. Typical examples include policy sign-off, audit evidence, and regulated documentation where “approved” must map to an exact page version instead of a moving target.
ApprovalFlow explicitly documents version-aware tracking as part of its service model. For teams that need strict mapping of decisions to page revision identifiers, this reduces ambiguity and makes downstream reporting easier.
Comala and AppFox both include strong lifecycle and workflow language, but their listing text does not always use identical terminology to how buyers phrase “version-level approvals.” That does not mean the vendors cannot address version-oriented workflows; it means buyers should verify exact behavior in their own acceptance criteria before rollout.
Practical recommendation: if version-anchored decisions are part of your internal control framework, convert that requirement into acceptance tests before procurement. Do not rely only on comparison labels.
Audit visibility and decision context
All three apps present audit-oriented value, but “audit trail” can range from simple status history to richer evidence including actor, timestamp, decision rationale, and state transition details.
ApprovalFlow policy documentation emphasizes audit events and approval records in Forge-hosted storage, with explicit fields such as version references, actor identifiers, and decision history.
Comala and AppFox both market audit and compliance outcomes strongly in Marketplace content. For teams in quality-controlled environments, this usually means both tools can support auditable workflows, but implementation quality still depends on how workflows are configured and how teams enforce operational discipline.
Practical recommendation: during evaluation, request a sample audit export or run a controlled pilot with known scenarios (approve, reject, resubmit, escalated review) and verify that the evidence quality is acceptable for your policy and external audits.
Workflow design complexity vs admin overhead
AppFox positions visual workflow building and trigger-based automation as a core strength. This is attractive for organizations with multi-step cross-team coordination and frequent workflow variation.
Comala has a long-standing enterprise governance position and broad lifecycle controls, which can be strong for organizations that already run mature policy workflows and can support deeper admin governance.
ApprovalFlow focuses more on straightforward setup and version-aware approvals with a lighter operational model. That profile is usually attractive where teams need practical control quickly and do not want to maintain highly complex workflow graphs.
Practical recommendation: choose the complexity level your admins can sustain six months after launch, not just what your team can demonstrate in a two-day proof of concept.
Hosting model and data posture
ApprovalFlow documentation states Forge-hosted processing and no external egress endpoints for app processing, which many buyers treat as a governance and architecture advantage in Confluence Cloud environments.
For Comala and AppFox, Marketplace deployment metadata in this snapshot includes Connect scope indicators in cloud deployment data. This does not automatically mean weak security; it means buyers should evaluate each vendor’s explicit data flow, residency controls, and contractual commitments rather than assuming parity with Forge posture.
Practical recommendation: if your security team distinguishes strongly between Forge-native and Connect-based app risk posture, involve them early and map those distinctions into your procurement checklist.
Pricing Analysis Beyond the Headline Number
Headline per-user numbers can be directionally useful, but total monthly cost depends on tier mechanics (block pricing vs per-unit tiers), seat count distribution, and growth path.
As of February 24, 2026:
- ApprovalFlow uses your stated price model: first 10 users free, then $0.40 per user per month.
- Comala cloud monthly pricing includes a free 1-10 block and $2.15 per user for the 11-100 tier.
- AppFox cloud monthly pricing includes a $10 block for 1-10 users and $1.26 per user for 11-100.
At 25 users:
- ApprovalFlow is $6.00/month.
- Comala is $32.25/month.
- AppFox is $28.90/month.
At 100 users:
- ApprovalFlow is $36.00/month.
- Comala is $193.50/month.
- AppFox is $123.40/month.
At 250 users (using visible tier progression from sampled Marketplace data):
- ApprovalFlow is $96.00/month.
- Comala is $382.50/month.
- AppFox is $271.90/month.
For cost-sensitive teams, that spread is substantial. However, cost should still be evaluated against process needs. If a team requires highly specialized workflow behavior and only one app can deliver it with acceptable governance, lowest price alone is not sufficient.
Three common pricing mistakes to avoid:
- Comparing only the 11-100 number and ignoring the 1-10 entry model.
- Ignoring how quickly seat growth moves you into different effective monthly totals.
- Treating price as a proxy for governance fitness without validating workflow behavior.
Practical recommendation: model 12-month cost using your expected seat trajectory and your minimum required controls, then evaluate engineering/admin effort as part of total cost of ownership.
Which Tool to Pick by Team Type
Pick Comala if
Choose Comala when your organization already runs formalized governance processes, accepts heavier workflow administration, and values broad enterprise lifecycle controls with explicit compliance-oriented capabilities like e-signature workflows.
Comala is often a fit where document governance is centralized and process owners already maintain complex review models.
Pick AppFox if
Choose AppFox when your primary need is visual workflow design and automation flexibility across varied team processes. The product framing is strong for organizations that want builder-style control and trigger automation as first-order requirements.
AppFox can be a strong choice where process patterns change frequently and teams need configurable logic without code.
Pick ApprovalFlow if
Choose ApprovalFlow when you need practical version-aware approvals, a Forge-hosted architecture posture, and cost efficiency without compromising core approval workflows.
ApprovalFlow is especially strong for small and mid-size teams that need policy-ready approval mechanics and a low-friction rollout path without enterprise-level workflow overhead.
Final Verdict
No single tool is objectively best for every Confluence team.
If your buying priority is enterprise breadth and deep governance controls, Comala will usually remain on the shortlist.
If your buying priority is visual workflow flexibility and trigger-rich automation, AppFox is often the natural candidate.
If your buying priority is a practical approval system with version-aware tracking, Forge-hosted posture, and aggressive cost efficiency, ApprovalFlow is likely the strongest fit.
The most reliable way to decide is to run a short pilot with real pages and real approvers, then score each tool against:
- Version accuracy of approvals.
- Audit evidence quality.
- Admin burden after initial setup.
- 12-month total cost at expected seat growth.
FAQ
Is Comala worth it for small teams?
It depends on whether the small team needs enterprise-style governance depth.
If the team mainly needs simple approvals with clear audit history and predictable low cost, Comala may be more feature-heavy than required. However, if the team already operates under strict governance frameworks and plans to scale complexity quickly, Comala can still be reasonable despite higher paid-tier costs.
The key question is not “is it expensive?” but “will we use the advanced control surface enough to justify the overhead and price?”
Does ApprovalFlow work with Confluence Data Center?
Based on the currently published Flowdence policy pages used in this comparison, ApprovalFlow is positioned for Confluence Cloud and relies on Forge-hosted services. It should be treated as a cloud app in this decision context.
If your organization is strictly Data Center, validate product compatibility directly against the current listing and vendor documentation before purchase decisions.
What’s the cheapest Confluence approval app?
In this comparison and pricing snapshot, ApprovalFlow has the lowest effective monthly cost profile at the tested team sizes, driven by:
- Free entry for up to 10 users.
- Low flat per-user paid pricing of $0.40.
That said, “cheapest” should always be evaluated after confirming the app satisfies your minimum governance, audit, and workflow requirements.
Why not just choose based on the feature checklist?
Because many purchasing failures happen when teams buy for checkbox parity but deploy into real workflows with hidden operational constraints.
Examples:
- An app can support approvals but still fail your version-specific audit requirement.
- An app can support rich workflow logic but require more admin ownership than your team can sustain.
- An app can appear cheaper at one tier but become costly with your seat growth pattern.
Use the feature table as a starting point, not the final decision framework.
Are these claims static or can they change?
They can change. Marketplace pricing, install counts, and feature messaging are all vendor-maintained and may update over time.
This post is explicitly dated to February 24, 2026 for that reason. For procurement-grade decisions, re-check pricing tabs and release notes at the time of purchase.
Sources
- Comala Document Management - Overview
- Comala Document Management - Pricing
- Comala Document Management - Live Pricing API
- Workflows for Confluence (AppFox) - Overview
- Workflows for Confluence (AppFox) - Pricing
- Workflows for Confluence (AppFox) - Live Pricing API
- ApprovalFlow Product Docs
- ApprovalFlow Terms of Use
- ApprovalFlow Data Handling Disclosure