Self-hosted documentation is having a moment. After years of SaaS platforms raising prices, changing terms, and shutting down without warning, more teams are choosing to run their own documentation infrastructure. The reasons are straightforward: data ownership, cost control, compliance, and the comfort of knowing your knowledge base won't disappear when a startup runs out of funding.
But the self-hosted documentation landscape is crowded and confusing. There are wiki platforms, static site generators, knowledge bases, and hybrid tools — each with different trade-offs. This guide cuts through the noise.
What Makes a Good Self-Hosted Docs Platform?
Before comparing specific tools, here's what we think matters most:
- Installation complexity. Can you get it running in under 5 minutes? Does it require Docker, Kubernetes, or a specific database?
- Editor experience. Does it have a web-based editor? Is it markdown-first, WYSIWYG, or both?
- Git integration. Can your documentation live in a git repository? Is the integration real (bidirectional) or cosmetic (one-way export)?
- Published output. Can you generate a public-facing documentation site? Does it look professional?
- Search quality. Can users find what they need? Full-text search with highlighting and relevance ranking is table stakes.
- Maintenance burden. How much ongoing work is required? Database backups, upgrades, security patches?
- Data portability. If you switch tools, can you export your content cleanly? Standard markdown is the gold standard.
The Contenders
Wiki.js
What it is: A Node.js-based wiki with a web editor, multiple storage backends, and extensive authentication options.
Pros:
- Mature, well-documented, active community
- Multiple editor modes (markdown, WYSIWYG, raw HTML)
- Supports many authentication providers (LDAP, SAML, OAuth)
- Clean, modern UI
Cons:
- Requires a database (PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, MS SQL, or SQLite)
- Git integration is one-way — the database is the source of truth, not git
- Version 3 has been "coming soon" for years
- Search is basic (no typo tolerance, limited relevance ranking)
Best for: Teams that want a traditional wiki with web editing and don't need real git integration.
BookStack
What it is: A PHP-based wiki organized as shelves, books, chapters, and pages.
Pros:
- Extremely easy to install (one PHP app + MySQL)
- Intuitive organizational model (shelves/books/chapters)
- Decent WYSIWYG editor
- Good permission system
Cons:
- No git integration at all
- Content is locked in MySQL — no markdown export
- Limited theming for published output
- PHP dependency (some teams prefer to avoid PHP stacks)
Best for: Non-technical teams that want a simple, well-organized wiki without developer tooling.
Outline
What it is: A modern knowledge base with a Notion-like block editor, built with Node.js and React.
Pros:
- Beautiful, fast UI — the best-looking self-hosted wiki
- Real-time collaboration
- Slash commands, markdown shortcuts, embeds
- API for automation
Cons:
- Complex to self-host (requires PostgreSQL, Redis, S3-compatible storage, SMTP)
- No git integration
- No published documentation sites — it's an internal tool only
- Export is markdown, but import from markdown is limited
Best for: Teams that want a Notion-like internal knowledge base and are comfortable with a complex hosting setup.
Docusaurus (Meta)
What it is: A React-based static site generator specifically for documentation, created by Meta.
Pros:
- Excellent published output — fast, SEO-friendly, versioned
- MDX support (embed React components in docs)
- Strong community and ecosystem
- Pure git workflow (content lives in the repo)
Cons:
- No web editor — you must edit markdown in an IDE or text editor
- Requires a build step (Node.js, npm, CI pipeline)
- Targeting single-author workflows — no collaboration features
- Overkill for simple documentation needs
Best for: Open-source projects and developer teams comfortable with git-only workflows who need polished public-facing docs.
MkDocs / Material for MkDocs
What it is: A Python-based static site generator with the popular Material theme.
Pros:
- Extremely simple — write markdown, run
mkdocs build - Material theme is clean and well-designed
- Large plugin ecosystem
- Pure git workflow
Cons:
- Same as Docusaurus: no web editor, no collaboration
- Python dependency (virtual environments, pip)
- No built-in search beyond basic lunr.js
- Configuration via YAML can get complex for large sites
Best for: Python-heavy teams that want simple, static documentation with a good default theme.
Valoryx
What it is: A Go-based documentation platform with bidirectional git sync, a WYSIWYG editor, and published documentation sites.
Pros:
- Single binary, zero dependencies — install in 30 seconds
- True bidirectional git sync (Content Ledger pattern)
- WYSIWYG editor that outputs clean markdown
- Published docs with custom domains, themes, versioning
- Built-in full-text search (SQLite FTS5)
- Free for teams up to 5 editors
Cons:
- Newer product — smaller community than Wiki.js or Docusaurus
- Fewer editor plugins and integrations (growing)
- Theme ecosystem is still developing
Best for: Teams that want the web editing experience of a wiki with the git-native workflow of a static site generator. Especially teams where developers and non-developers both contribute to documentation.
Quick Comparison Table
| Feature | Wiki.js | BookStack | Outline | Docusaurus | MkDocs | Valoryx |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Web Editor | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Git Integration | Partial | No | No | Native | Native | Bidirectional |
| Self-Hosted | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Dependencies | Node + DB | PHP + MySQL | Node + PG + Redis + S3 | Node | Python | None |
| Install Time | ~15 min | ~10 min | ~30 min | ~5 min | ~5 min | ~30 sec |
| Published Docs | Limited | Limited | No | Excellent | Excellent | Excellent |
| Search | Basic | Basic | Good | Basic | Basic | Good (FTS5) |
| Free Tier | Full | Full | Full | Full | Full | Up to 5 editors |
Our Recommendation
There is no single best tool — it depends on your team.
If your team is all developers who are comfortable with git and IDEs, Docusaurus or MkDocs are excellent choices. You get a pure git workflow, beautiful published output, and zero operational overhead (it's just static files).
If your team includes non-developers who need a web editor, and you want real git integration, that's where Valoryx fits. You get the web editing experience of Wiki.js with the git-native workflow of Docusaurus.
If you need an internal knowledge base (not public docs) with real-time collaboration and a Notion-like editor, Outline is the best option — if you can handle the hosting complexity.
If you want the simplest possible wiki and don't care about git, BookStack is hard to beat for ease of use.
Whatever you choose, the most important thing is that your documentation exists, is maintained, and is findable. The tool matters less than the habit.