1. Installation and Setup: Wiki.js has a simpler and more streamlined installation process compared to Woodpecker, making it quicker and easier to get started. Woodpecker, on the other hand, requires more configuration and setup.

2. User Interface: Wiki.js offers a more user-friendly and intuitive interface with a modern design, making it easier for users to navigate and find what they need. Woodpecker, while functional, has a more outdated and complex interface, which may be more challenging for users to use effectively.

3. Customization Options: Wiki.js provides extensive customization options for users to personalize their wiki, including themes, plugins, and settings. Woodpecker, on the other hand, has limited customization capabilities, restricting users in tailoring their wiki to their specific needs.

4. Collaboration Features: Wiki.js offers robust collaboration features such as real-time editing, comments, and notifications, facilitating teamwork and communication among users. Woodpecker lacks some of these advanced collaboration tools, making it less suitable for collaborative projects.

5. Documentation Support: Wiki.js has built-in support for Markdown and other popular documentation formats, making it easier for users to create and manage content. Woodpecker, while supporting Markdown, lacks comprehensive documentation features, limiting users in creating structured documentation.

6. Community and Support: Wiki.js has a larger and more active community of users and developers, providing a wealth of resources, support, and updates. Woodpecker, while having a community, may have fewer resources and support available, potentially leading to slower development and fewer updates.

In Summary, Wiki.js and Woodpecker differ in installation, user interface, customization, collaboration features, documentation support, and community support, with Wiki.js offering a more user-friendly experience and robust features.