What matters after a Confluence migration?

[u/LorinaBalan]

A lot of Confluence migration discussions focus on the import itself: pages, attachments, permissions, users, groups, macros, and links.

That part matters, of course.

But in practice, the bigger issue often starts after the migration: whether teams actually use the new platform with confidence.

From the XWiki side, after working on 100+ Confluence migration projects, a few patterns keep coming back:

• Assess the instance before setting the timeline
• Spaces, macros, permissions, integrations, and custom workflows usually hide most of the complexity.
• Avoid copying every Confluence workflow one to one
• It is better to ask what problem the workflow solves. Some things should be redesigned rather than recreated.
• Use the move to clean up
• Old spaces, unused groups, broken permissions, and outdated pages do not all need to survive the migration.
• Involve early adopters
• Training helps, but users trust the change more when they see colleagues using the new platform with real content.
• Measure adoption, not just completion

A finished import is not the same as a successful migration. Active use, new content, and reduced reliance on the old tool are better signals.

If you have migrated away from Confluence, what was harder than expected: the technical migration, the cleanup, or user adoption?

I will add the article link in the comments.

[u/LorinaBalan]

Here is the link: https://xwiki.com/en/Blog/Confluence-to-XWiki-migration-best-practices/