Atlas vs Beacon: a knowledge base for a 12-person support team
Fictional worked article. Atlas and Beacon, their prices and their features are invented. This hand-authored example shows a complete comparison structure, not an AI-generated result, real vendor research or a customer endorsement. Its two source sheets are reproduced below so every claim can be checked.
A support team choosing a knowledge base needs more than a feature count. The useful question is whether the tool makes it easier to publish answers that agents trust. For a 12-person team with ten readers and two authors, Atlas is cheaper under the fictional prices below. Beacon costs more but includes a review step that matters if several people own sensitive or frequently changing instructions.
The team and the decision
Assume two authors maintain 120 internal articles and ten support agents read them. The team needs search, Markdown import and an export it can keep. It publishes one policy update each week. There is no requirement for a public help centre. We compare monthly billing in USD, excluding tax and staff time. These requirements define the choice; another team could reach a different conclusion.
What the supplied product sheets actually say
| Requirement | Atlas | Beacon | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 people | $8 per user; readers count as users | $15 per author, plus $80 workspace; readers included | Count authors and readers separately before comparing headline rates. |
| Review before publication | Authors publish directly | Reviewer approval before publication | A required review step changes the policy-update workflow. |
| Import and export | Markdown in; Markdown archive out | Markdown in; HTML archive out | Test attachments, links and metadata separately; neither sheet promises their preservation. |
| Search | Keyword search | Keyword search | The sheets establish availability, not search quality. |
| Retention and SSO | Not specified | Not specified | Request verified information if these are purchase conditions. |
Worked monthly cost
Atlas costs 12 × $8 = $96/month. Beacon costs 2 × $15 + $80 = $110/month. The $14 difference buys the stated approval workflow, not a proven productivity gain. If six people become authors, Beacon rises to $170 while Atlas stays at $96 for the same total headcount. If the team grows to 30 people but retains two authors, Atlas becomes $240 and Beacon remains $110 under the supplied rules. Confirm limits and real quotes before using this method for actual vendors.
How a policy change moves through each tool
In Atlas, an author edits the refund-policy article and publishes it. The team must arrange a separate review if the support lead must approve the change. In Beacon, the author submits the change to a reviewer before it becomes public to readers. That extra step may reduce accidental publication, but it also creates a queue if the reviewer is unavailable. Decide who provides backup and whether urgent corrections can wait.
Neither product sheet describes version comparison or rollback. Do not infer those features from the presence of an approval step. Ask each vendor to demonstrate correcting a published mistake, and record what remains visible to readers during the correction.
Migration is a separate test
Both accept Markdown, but a format name is not a migration guarantee. Import five representative articles: one with nested headings, one with a table, one with images, one with internal links and one with a long code sample. Check that readers can still reach the same answers. Export those articles again and open the archive without the vendor’s application. An archive that preserves prose but loses links may not meet the team’s exit requirement.
Recommendation by situation
Choose Atlas for the fictional 12-person team if two trusted authors can publish directly and a separate review process is acceptable. It is $14 cheaper per month in this configuration, but that saving is small enough to be outweighed by a single awkward review handoff.
Choose Beacon if approval before publication is mandatory or the audience is growing faster than the author group. Confirm how approvals work in a real demonstration before treating the extra cost as worthwhile.
Choose neither yet if SSO, a retention period or verified attachment preservation is required. Those facts are missing from the supplied evidence. A fluent comparison cannot settle them.
Source pack and review notes
Fictional Atlas sheet, 21 September 2026: $8/user/month; all authors and readers count. Authors publish directly. Keyword search. Markdown import and Markdown archive export.
Fictional Beacon sheet, 21 September 2026: $80/workspace/month plus $15/author/month; readers included. Reviewer approval before publication. Keyword search. Markdown import and HTML archive export.
Editorial check: Price arithmetic is shown. Approval is a feature distinction, not a claim of fewer incidents. No search-speed, adoption or customer-outcome claim is made. Unknown retention, SSO and migration details remain explicitly unanswered.