Choose Doco when
- Agents must change maintained internal documents, not only retrieve published docs.
- Self-hosting and MIT licensing are required.
- Live human-agent collaboration and block-level concurrency are central.
Honest comparison · Doco and GitBook
Doco vs GitBook
Choose GitBook for polished public product documentation, Git Sync, built-in AI discovery, and a read-only MCP endpoint for every published site. Choose Doco when humans and external agents must co-edit internal documents through protected write APIs.
Direct answerChoose for the job,
Choose for the job,
not the feature count
The products overlap, but their centers of gravity are different. Start with the source of truth and the people or agents who must maintain it.
Choose GitBook when
- The main deliverable is a polished public documentation site.
- Docs-as-code Git Sync and automatic LLM/MCP publishing are priorities.
- A hosted publishing platform and built-in AI Assistant fit the workflow.
At a glance
The operating differences
| Dimension | Doco | GitBook |
|---|---|---|
| Primary job | Internal and shared documents maintained by humans and agents | Published product guides, API references and docs sites |
| Data ownership | MIT source and self-hosted deployment | Hosted GitBook platform with Git repository sync |
| Human collaboration | Live Yjs editing in the workspace | Block editor plus docs publishing workflow |
| Agent access | Read/write MCP, CLI and REST with version checks | Automatic read-only MCP for every published site |
| Content model | Rich-text blocks with Markdown import/export | Git-synced Markdown and GitBook blocks |
| Best fit | Operational knowledge and runbooks that agents must update | Public product documentation and developer portals |
GitBook is stronger when
GitBook is stronger at publishing: branded documentation sites, Git Sync, API references, AI Assistant, automatic Markdown views, llms files, and a read-only MCP endpoint for every published space.
Doco is stronger when
Doco is stronger as the editable source of truth behind the docs. External agents can search, cite, patch a stable block, detect conflicts, and make the change appear in the same live editor a human has open.
Migration
Moving from GitBook
Migration is low to medium effort when Git Sync already owns standard Markdown. GitBook-specific blocks, site customization, redirects, authenticated publishing, and Assistant configuration remain publishing concerns outside the document import.
- 01
Pull the Git Sync repository or export a representative space with Markdown and assets.
- 02
Import the Markdown tree into a Doco knowledge base and preserve the repository as the rollback source.
- 03
Review GitBook-specific blocks, redirects, page metadata, and generated API-reference content.
- 04
Decide whether GitBook remains the publishing layer while Doco becomes the internal human-agent authoring source.
Run a representative trial first. Keep the original export until links, attachments, permissions, tables, and a restore have all been verified.
Bottom line
Use the smaller truth
GitBook is the better publishing platform. Doco is the better shared authoring system when agents need protected writes. Some teams may use both: Doco for maintained knowledge, GitBook for public delivery.
01Does every GitBook site have MCP?
Every published GitBook site automatically exposes a read-only HTTP MCP endpoint at /~gitbook/mcp and respects the site's visibility settings.
02Can Doco publish a docs website like GitBook?
Doco can publish public document pages and Markdown, but GitBook is much more mature for complete product-documentation sites, navigation, branding, and Git Sync.
03Can the two products work together?
Yes in principle. Teams can maintain source knowledge in Doco, export Markdown, and use a repository/GitBook publishing workflow, but the synchronization bridge must be designed and reviewed.