Free calculator
What is docs review drift actually costing you?
Every documentation PR that gets reviewed in Google Docs, Confluence, or email costs your team measurable hours and dollars — and nobody tracks it. Plug in your numbers below. The math is shown inline so you can sanity-check every figure.
Methodology
How the numbers are calculated
The calculator models four costs of reviewing docs outside the pull request: writer reconciliation time, reviewer friction time, release delay, and reviewer dropout.
Per-PR minute defaults by tool:
| Tool | Writer min/PR | Reviewer min/PR | Delay days/PR | Dropout % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Docs | 90 | 20 | 2 | 15% |
| Confluence | 75 | 15 | 2 | 25% |
| Email / PDF | 120 | 30 | 3 | 30% |
| GitHub native | 15 | 45 | 4 | 60% |
| DraftView | 10 | 8 | 0.5 | 5% |
Annual cost formula: (writer_min ÷ 60 × writer_rate + reviewers × reviewer_min ÷ 60 × reviewer_rate) × PRs/year
Loaded hourly cost should include benefits, equipment, and overhead — typically 1.3-1.5× base salary. The $85/hr writer and $130/hr reviewer defaults assume mid-senior US-equivalent fully-burdened rates.
The savings estimate assumes DraftView replaces the copy-paste-reconcile loop with a single-source review where suggestions become native GitHub Suggested Changes that writers accept or reject in one click. For deeper context, see the hidden cost of reviewing docs in Google Docs and why non-technical reviewers won't use GitHub.
FAQ
Common questions
- Where do the per-tool defaults come from?
- Defaults are calibrated against published benchmarks for documentation review cycle times and observed patterns from docs-as-code teams. Google Docs: ~90 minutes per PR of writer reconciliation comes from the round-trip of copy-out, collect-feedback, and manually reapply suggestions to the Markdown source. Confluence assumes a slightly lower writer cost but higher mirror-staleness risk. Email/PDF redlines incur the highest writer cost because feedback fragments across threads. GitHub native is fastest for the writer but most non-technical reviewers either disengage or take significant time to interpret raw diffs.
- Why do non-technical reviewers cost more per hour than writers?
- Loaded hourly cost is fully-burdened (salary + benefits + equipment + overhead, typically ~1.4× base salary). PMs, Legal, and SMEs typically have higher base salaries than technical writers, and their time is often the bottleneck for shipping. The default of $130/hour assumes a mix of mid-level PMs and senior subject matter experts.
- How does DraftView reduce these costs?
- DraftView renders the GitHub PR as a visual, Google Docs-style review page. Writers spend ~10 minutes per PR accepting or rejecting suggestions instead of 60-120 minutes reconciling Google Docs feedback. Reviewers see formatted content with inline suggestions — no learning curve, no GitHub account required. Suggestions sync back to the PR as native GitHub Suggested Changes, so there is no version drift between the review copy and the source.
- Is this calculator biased toward DraftView?
- The calculator shows the cost of your current workflow regardless of whether you ever use DraftView. The savings figure is an estimate based on DraftView replacing the copy-paste-reconcile loop with a single-source review. The math is shown inline next to every number so you can adjust the assumptions for your own team.
- What if my team reviews docs in something else?
- If you use a tool not listed (Notion, Slack, custom internal tool), pick the closest match: Notion behaves like Confluence (mirror-and-reconcile), Slack like email (fragmented), custom tools usually like Google Docs (copy-out, paste-back). The exact tool matters less than the underlying pattern: any review that happens outside the PR creates drift.
Stop the drift
Try DraftView on a real docs PR — in 60 seconds, no account.
Paste any public GitHub PR URL. See your docs rendered as a visual review page, suggest edits in a Google Docs-style editor, and watch suggestions land in the PR as native Suggested Changes.