Git as the source of truth, not a sync target.
Wiki.js is a capable self-hosted wiki, and it can mirror its content to a Git repository. The distinction worth understanding is which copy is authoritative: in Wiki.js the database holds the wiki and Git receives a reflection of it, so the two can drift and have to be reconciled. DocuCommit has no database. The repository is the wiki, every published change is a commit, and there is no second copy to keep honest.
Who each one is for.
Wiki.js is for teams that want a free, open-source wiki with granular permissions and a long list of authentication providers, all in the browser. It runs as a Node application against PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, MSSQL, or SQLite, and it can mirror content to a Git repository if you want a copy in version control. Writers contribute from any device, phones included, with nothing to install. If AGPL open source and browser-only editing matter most, Wiki.js is the better fit.
DocuCommit is for teams that want the repository to be the only copy. There is no database: pages are Markdown files in ordinary folders, and a clone of the repo is the documentation. Writing happens in a desktop editor on Windows, macOS, or Linux, and readers use a read-only web app you run as a Docker container. Choose it when one source of truth and real Git history matter more than browser editing and an open-source licence.
Wiki.js vs DocuCommit.
| Capability | DocuCommit | Wiki.js |
|---|---|---|
| Source of truth | The Git repository. There is no second copy to reconcile | The database. Git storage is available as a sync target, mirroring content in and out |
| Database | None. The repo is the store | Required — PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, MSSQL, or SQLite |
| Backup | git clone for the content — a checkout is a complete, readable copy. Server accounts and comments back up with the server's working directory | Database dump plus uploaded assets, restored together |
| Editing | Desktop WYSIWYG editor that writes clean Markdown, with a raw-source toggle | Browser editors — visual, Markdown, or code — no install for writers |
| Two people, one page | Save-conflict detection plus a guided three-pane merge in the app. No real-time co-editing | Browser save into the database. With two-way Git sync the page can also change in the repo between syncs, and reconciling the two is the operator's problem |
| Revision history | Git history: real commits, authors, messages, diffs, restore | Built-in version history stored in the database |
| Comments | Paragraph comments and @mentions on the server only — stored in the server's working directory, not in the repo, so the Markdown stays clean | Built-in commenting on pages |
| Diagrams | Bundled draw.io editor and Mermaid, fully offline | Mermaid and PlantUML; draw.io through embeds |
| Search | Built-in full-text search (Lucene) with tag filters, rebuilt from the files | Pluggable engines — database, Elasticsearch, Algolia and others — configured separately |
| Cost and licence | Proprietary, flat fee per tier, readers free and unlimited, 14-day trial | Free and open source (AGPL) |
Comparison reflects Wiki.js's current open-source release and is accurate to the best of our knowledge at the time of writing; check the Wiki.js documentation for specifics. Wiki.js is a trademark of its respective owner, used here only to describe the comparison.
What having no database changes.
-
One copy cannot disagree with itself
A sync target is a second copy, and second copies drift — an edit made in the repo and an edit made in the browser have to be reconciled by someone. With Git-backed documentation, where the repo is the store rather than a mirror, the question never arises.
-
Backup stops being a procedure
No dump, no restore rehearsal, no matching assets to rows. A clone is every document and its whole history, readable in any text editor, on any machine, years later. Server-side accounts and comments are not in Git; they live in the server's working directory and are backed up with it.
-
Conflicts surface where you can see them
There is no real-time co-editing. When two writers touch the same page, DocuCommit detects it on save and hands the second one a guided three-pane merge, so the divergence is settled in the app rather than left for someone to spot later.
-
Fewer moving parts to operate
A container and a repository, rather than a Node application, a database, a storage module, and a search engine to keep configured and upgraded together.
Where Wiki.js is the better fit.
Wiki.js is a strong project and it wins outright in several places:
- It is free and open source under the AGPL — you can read, fork, and audit every line, which DocuCommit does not offer.
- Everything happens in the browser: no desktop app to install, and writers can contribute from any device, including phones.
- Granular permissions, groups, and a long list of authentication providers, which suit larger or more heterogeneous organisations.
- If you already operate a database and are comfortable with it, the "no database" argument is not a benefit you feel.
Choose Wiki.js when open source and browser-only editing matter most. Choose DocuCommit when you want the files themselves to be the system of record, with real Git history and nothing to migrate later.
More comparisons. See all DocuCommit comparisons, or the two closest to this one: DocuCommit vs BookStack, the other free self-hosted wiki with a database behind it, and DocuCommit vs GitBook, which treats Git as a sync target in much the same way.
Let the repo be the wiki.
Start a 14-day trial, no card required. Every page is a plain Markdown file in your own Git repo, yours to keep whether you stay or not.