Foswiki vs MediaWiki (2026): which should you pick?
As of Nov 12, 2026, MediaWiki grades higher than Foswiki: 2.6 against 2.2 out of 4.0.
Checked Oct 5, 2026 and Nov 12, 2026 · graded Oct 10, 2026 and Nov 12, 2026 by ToolGPA
MediaWiki grades higher on value for money. They get the same grade on the free plan, features, ease of use and platforms.
Price, platforms and features side by side. The table says where each price was read and when.
Which one is for you
Pick Foswiki if
- Fits if you have a server and someone to look after it and want a wiki you fully control
- Works for teams moving off TWiki who want to keep its syntax
Look elsewhere if
- Skip it if you want hosting, as you provide and maintain the server
- Not for you if you need paid support, as it comes from the community with no vendor plan
- Watch out: security releases were posted in 2023 and 2026, and the site says to upgrade when they appear
- Tight if you lack Perl and Apache, Nginx or Lighttpd skills
Pick MediaWiki if
- Fits if you're building a large public wiki or an encyclopedia-style reference site
- Works for organizations with a server administrator to install and update it
Look elsewhere if
- Skip it if parts of your wiki must stay private, because the manual says it was designed for open content
- Not for you if nobody can look after PHP 8.3, a web server, a database and regular security upgrades
- Tight if your server is short on disk space or memory, since it's tuned for very high-traffic sites
- Watch out: hosting comes only from third parties the Wikimedia Foundation neither guarantees nor endorses
- Not for you if you want phone apps or ready-made integrations: none are on record, and extensions may be unmaintained
How we grade them
| 2.2GPAFoswikiFair | 2.6GPAMediaWikiGood | |
|---|---|---|
| Value for money | CFree to download, but it only runs on a server you provide, with Perl and Apache, Nginx or Lighttpd, so it is not free in practice and lands at the middle. | AFree of charge under the GNU General Public License, with no paid edition and nothing to upgrade to. You pay for a server and nothing else, and it comes with no warranty. |
| Free plan and trial | AFree to download and run, with no plan caps. The cost is the server and the upkeep, which sit outside the listing. | AFree outright. The full software is a download for your own server, and help comes from the community support desk. There is no paid tier to be nudged towards. |
| Features | CEditing in the browser, macros for dynamic pages, extensions, layout customisation and TWiki compatibility. The wiki job is done, but there is no vendor support plan and no hosted version. | CWikitext or the bundled VisualEditor, a full history of every revision, extensions, an API and room for millions of hits a day. The gap is a big one, and the manual says it: MediaWiki is often not suitable when access to part of a wiki must be restricted. Third-party extensions may also be unmaintained. |
| Ease of use | DYou install and maintain it yourself, which needs a Perl server and, on Unix-like systems, a few shell commands. | DYou host it yourself. It needs PHP 8.3 or later, web server software, a database such as MariaDB or MySQL, and ongoing security upgrades. Ready-made hosting comes only from third parties the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't endorse. |
| Platforms and integrations | CWeb only, served from your own machine. No integrations or apps are listed on the pages read. | CA browser and nothing else: no phone or desktop app, and no integrations at all on record. The Action API is the one way in for programs, letting them log in, read data and post changes over HTTP. |
| Best for | a wiki you run on your own Perl server | large public wikis that anyone can read |
The GPA is the average of the five grades: an A is 4 points, an F is none. The full reasons are on each tool's page: Foswiki and MediaWiki. How we grade
Price against what you get
Foswiki has no paid plan and scores 1.7 out of 4 on features, ease of use and platforms. MediaWiki has no paid plan and scores 1.7.
On this chart the two sit in the same place: the same score for the same starting price. Of the other docs and wiki tools on the chart, none scores higher than Foswiki for less, and none scores higher than MediaWiki for less.
Features, ease of use and platforms, averaged
What paid plans start at, a month (each step along is roughly double) →
- The best score at each price
- Has a free plan
- No free plan
Where they differ
- MediaWiki is open source, according to its own site.
- Foswiki also covers documents.
In commonFree planWebSelf-hostableWiki
At a glance
| Foswiki | MediaWiki | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Starts at | Free | Free |
| Free plan | Free to download and run; you provide and maintain the server. | The software is free of charge and licensed under version 2 or later of the GNU General Public License, with no warranty. |
| Free trial | None listed | None listed |
| Web | ||
| Made by | Foswiki community | Wikimedia Foundation |
| Price read from | foswiki.org | mediawiki.org |
| Checked | Nov 12, 2026 | Oct 5, 2026 |
Worth knowing
Foswiki
- You install and maintain it yourself: it needs a Perl server with Apache, Nginx or Lighttpd and, on Unix-like systems, a few shell commands.
- Support comes from the community; there is no vendor support plan on the site.
- The project posted security releases in 2023 and 2026, and its site recommends upgrading when they appear.
MediaWiki
- The manual says MediaWiki is often not suitable when access to part of a wiki must be restricted, because it was designed for open content.
- You host it yourself: it needs PHP 8.3 or later, web server software and a database such as MariaDB or MySQL, and ongoing security upgrades.
- It is optimized for very high-traffic sites and may not suit small sites where disk space or memory is the tighter limit.
- Hosting comes only from third parties: the site lists hosting services that the Wikimedia Foundation neither guarantees nor endorses.
Key features
Foswiki
- Browser editing
- Team members create and edit pages directly in the web browser with a built-in WYSIWYG text editor.
- Macros for dynamic pages
- Macros automate pages and let users build applications such as status boards, to-do lists, inventory systems and bug trackers from within the browser.
- Extensions
- The site lists over 200 maintained extensions that expand what the wiki does out of the box.
- Layout customization
- The look of the site can be changed for the whole site, or per page, user or group.
- TWiki compatibility
- Foswiki is compatible with TWiki and offers a migration path from it.
MediaWiki
- Wikitext and VisualEditor
- Pages use MediaWiki's wikitext format, which needs no knowledge of HTML or CSS. The VisualEditor extension, bundled since version 1.35, allows editing pages as rich content instead.
- Full revision history
- Every edit is written to the database without deleting earlier versions of the page, so vandalism, spam or mistakes can be reverted easily.
- Extensions
- Administrators add functions by installing extensions. Some are bundled with the software; third-party ones may be unmaintained or incompatible with each other.
- Action API
- A web service at the api.php endpoint lets programs log in, read data and post changes over HTTP, covering features such as page operations and search.
- Built for high traffic
- The software was designed to serve sites that get millions of hits a day. It supports caching and can be coupled with proxy server software.
- Image and media files
- MediaWiki also manages images and multimedia files, which are stored in the server's file system rather than in the database.
Plans
Foswiki
Foswiki$0
Free platform with community-based support. You install and host it yourself.
MediaWiki
MediaWiki$0
The full software, downloaded and installed on your own server, with help from the community support desk.
Common questions
Which is cheaper, Foswiki or MediaWiki?
As of Nov 12, 2026, both Foswiki and MediaWiki are free to use.
Which has a free plan, Foswiki or MediaWiki?
As of Nov 12, 2026, both Foswiki and MediaWiki have a free plan.
More comparisons
How this page was made
- The verdict at the top follows a fixed rule. When both tools are in the same category and either is in our top three for it, the verdict follows that ranking: the higher-placed tool is our pick. The top three weigh who each tool suits as well as its grades, so a pick can go against the GPA. Otherwise the page does not pick one and says which grades higher: the higher GPA first; on a tie, the one with a free plan, then the one that starts cheaper in dollars a month, counted the same way for both; if they are still level, what the choice depends on.
- The grades are our own, from each tool’s review or report card. The GPA is their average.
- Prices, plans and platforms come from each tool’s listing. The table above says where each price was read and when.
- The differences and the answers to the questions are worked out from those listings.