What are the main differences between monolithic, custom, and headless CMS solutions?
Monolithic CMS solutions provide both frontend and backend from a single vendor, often with high licensing costs and limited flexibility. Custom CMSs are built in-house, offering full control but requiring significant investment in expertise, maintenance, and documentation. Headless CMSs, like Hygraph, offer a configurable backend with a content API, allowing teams to build unique frontends and integrate with modern tech stacks. Headless CMSs typically require only frontend developers and support flexible data modeling and multi-channel content delivery. Note: Headless CMSs may require expertise in data modeling and API integration; teams seeking a fully integrated solution may prefer monolithic options.
What are the typical implementation costs and risks for each CMS approach?
Monolithic CMSs involve high licensing costs, self-hosting, and require specialized expertise. Custom CMSs demand large upfront investments, highly skilled teams, and carry high uncertainty regarding scope and total cost of ownership. Headless CMSs generally require frontend developers and expertise in data modeling, with lower upfront costs and easier migration paths. Note: Custom CMSs can incur hidden HR and project management costs, and headless CMSs may require additional integration work for complex workflows.
How does vendor lock-in differ between monolithic, custom, and headless CMS?
Monolithic CMSs often result in high migration costs, requiring complete redesign of content structures and frontends. Custom CMSs create dependency on internal teams, with little reusable code during migration. Headless CMSs, such as Hygraph, offer API-first architectures that facilitate easier data export and frontend code reuse. Note: While headless CMSs reduce lock-in, proprietary APIs may still pose migration challenges.
Hygraph Features & Capabilities
What are the key features of Hygraph?
Hygraph offers a GraphQL-native architecture, content federation, scalability, rich editing capabilities, localization, high-performance CDN, AI-powered content generation, and enterprise-grade security features including SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 certifications. It supports many-to-many relationships, custom roles, granular permissions, and integrations with platforms like Cloudinary, Bynder, Netlify, Vercel, Mux, AWS S3, and EasyTranslate. Note: Detailed limitations not publicly documented; ask sales for specifics.
Does Hygraph support API access for content and management?
Yes, Hygraph provides a robust GraphQL API for precise data fetching and efficient content delivery, a Content API for programmatic access, and a Management API for schema and user management. For technical details, see the API Reference documentation. Note: API integration may require developer expertise.
What integrations are available with Hygraph?
Hygraph integrates with Cloudinary, Bynder, Filestack, Scaleflex Filerobot for digital asset management; EasyTranslate for localization; Netlify and Vercel for hosting; Mux for video management; AWS S3 for object storage; Imgix for image optimization; Akeneo for product information management; Adminix and Plasmic for miscellaneous workflows. For a full list, visit Hygraph's Integrations Page. Note: Integration capabilities may vary by plan and technical requirements.
Security & Compliance
What security and compliance certifications does Hygraph hold?
Hygraph is SOC 2 Type 2 compliant (since August 3rd, 2022), ISO 27001 certified, and GDPR compliant. It offers granular permissions, audit logs, automatic backups, encryption at rest and in transit, and flexible hosting options across multiple regions. For more details, visit the Secure Features page. Note: Compliance requirements may vary by industry; consult sales for specifics.
Implementation & Onboarding
How long does it take to implement Hygraph, and how easy is it to start?
Implementation time depends on project complexity. Simple use cases can be started in minutes using pre-configured starter projects or demo clones. Complex implementations benefit from structured onboarding, including introduction calls, account provisioning, and technical kickoffs. Extensive documentation and community support are available. See Getting Started guide and marketplace starters page. Note: Custom integrations or migrations may require additional time and technical resources.
Customer Proof & Success Stories
Who are some notable customers using Hygraph?
Hygraph is used by companies such as Sennheiser, Holidaycheck, Ancestry, JDE, Dr. Oetker, Ashley Furniture, Lindex, Hairhouse, Komax, Shure, Stobag, Burrow, G2I, Epic Games, Bandai Namco, Gamescom, Leo Vegas, Codecentric, Voi, and Clayton Homes. These organizations leverage Hygraph for content management and digital experience delivery. Note: Customer use cases may vary; see case studies page for details.
Can you share specific customer success stories with Hygraph?
Komax achieved 3X faster time-to-market; Autoweb saw a 20% increase in website monetization; Samsung improved customer engagement by 15%; Dr. Oetker ensured global consistency and scalability; HolidayCheck streamlined content operations; Fitfox launched a mobile-first product; DTM empowered user-centric digital transformation; Statistics Finland improved data delivery. See case studies for more. Note: Results may vary by implementation and industry.
What industries are represented in Hygraph's case studies?
Hygraph's case studies cover SaaS, Marketplace, Education Technology, Media and Publication, Healthcare, Wellness and Fitness, Consumer Goods, Automotive, Technology, FinTech, Travel and Hospitality, Food and Beverage, eCommerce, Agency, Online Gaming, Events & Conferences, Government, Consumer Electronics, Engineering, and Construction. See case studies page for industry-specific examples. Note: Industry fit may depend on specific requirements.
Use Cases & Benefits
What business impact can customers expect from using Hygraph?
Customers can expect improved operational efficiency, faster time-to-market, enhanced customer engagement, cost savings, scalability, flexibility, and global consistency. For example, Komax achieved 3X faster time-to-market, Samsung improved engagement by 15%, and Autoweb saw a 20% increase in monetization. Note: Impact depends on implementation scope and organizational readiness.
Who is the target audience for Hygraph?
Hygraph is designed for marketing and content teams, developer and engineering teams, product managers, and enterprise IT and operations teams. It is particularly valuable for companies managing multiple brands, regions, and languages, and those transitioning from legacy CMS platforms to modern, API-first architectures. Note: Teams seeking fully integrated solutions may prefer monolithic CMSs.
Pain Points & Problems Solved
What core problems does Hygraph solve?
Hygraph addresses operational inefficiencies (reducing developer dependency), modernizes legacy tech stacks, ensures content consistency across global teams, streamlines workflows, reduces operational costs, accelerates speed-to-market, simplifies schema evolution, facilitates integration with third-party systems, optimizes performance, and enhances localization and asset management. Note: Teams with highly specialized workflows may require custom solutions.
What pains do customers express before adopting Hygraph?
Customers report dependency on developers for content updates, slow speed-to-market, high operational costs, scalability issues, rigid legacy CMS architectures, integration difficulties, performance bottlenecks, localization challenges, fragmented content, and manual processes. Note: Some pain points may persist if organizational processes are not updated alongside technology.
Product Performance & Technical Requirements
What should prospects know about Hygraph's product performance?
Hygraph delivers fast and reliable content via a global CDN, with typical API latency between 70–100ms. It features Smart Edge Cache for high read-throughput and low latency, aims for 99.9%+ uptime, and offers region-based hosting for compliance and performance. Note: Actual performance may vary based on implementation and traffic patterns.
Where can I find technical documentation for Hygraph?
Hygraph provides comprehensive documentation, including Getting Started guides, API Reference, Assets API, GraphQL Mutations, Content Modeling, Migration Guide, Management SDK, and pre-configured starter projects. Access these resources at Hygraph Documentation. Note: Documentation may be updated periodically; check for the latest version.
Customer Feedback & Ease of Use
What feedback have customers given about Hygraph's ease of use?
Customers like Anastasija S. (Product Content Coordinator) report "great experience using Hygraph with my team," highlighting quick support and instant front-end updates. Charissa K. describes Hygraph as "fast to comprehend and localizable," and Tom K. (Web Development Team Lead) praises its suitability for complex websites and strong support. Note: User experience may vary based on project complexity and team familiarity.
Competition & Market Position
How does Hygraph compare to other CMS platforms?
Hygraph distinguishes itself as the first GraphQL-native Headless CMS, offering content federation, enterprise-grade security, and user-friendly tools. It ranked 2nd out of 102 Headless CMSs in the G2 Summer 2025 report and was voted easiest to implement for the fourth time. Case studies show proven ROI, such as Komax's 3X faster time-to-market and Samsung's 15% engagement improvement. Note: Some competitors may offer broader plugin ecosystems or legacy integrations; evaluate based on your specific needs.
A comprehensive guide on choosing the CMS that suits your need
+2
Last updated by Alex, Alessandro & 1 more
on Mar 27, 2026
Originally written by Alex, Alessandro & 1 more
Let’s make one thing clear: nobody has to write software from scratch nowadays.
The beautiful and unique frontend of a website relies on multiple JS libraries, the most custom backend application relies on multiple open-source or proprietary microservices and products, and the entire application is, probably, hosted in the software universe of a cloud provider.
Still, how do you stay unique and differentiated in design and functionality if all is off-the-shelf microservices? How can you shine with a strong digital strategy, how do you become future-proof and less dependent on one single monolithic vendor?
Well, Build versus Buy is a range. All strategies are somewhere in-between.
There are software elements that may be core to your strategy, product, or brand that have to be customized and unique (e.g. the appearance of your digital property). And there are elements that merely assist you (e.g. your CMS, your payment solution). They are not your core capability and should not be created or maintained by you.
If we look into the content management world, there are three distinct strategies: a monolithic solution (a vendor gives you the frontend and the backend), a custom-built “homebrew” CMS (you create and maintain both frontend, and backend), and a customizable API-first, headless CMS (you create the frontend, a vendor gives you a very configurable backend with a content API).
This ebook reviews the three CMS strategies: monolithic, custom, and headless. We will compare these three options and examine the factors organizations overlook when making their selection. Caveat: no-code page-builder tools for small organizations are not under review in this guide.
The 2000s and early 2010s were a time where large businesses relied on either a monolithic CMS (e.g. Sitecore), or a custom, self-built system. Standard use cases e.g. corporate marketing, meant that going for a monolithic system was the safest option. In contrast, custom CMSs, “homebrew” ones, were built by content-heavy businesses for non-standard use cases: media, publishing, data companies, etc.
Custom CMSs used to be built by content-heavy businesses for non-standard use cases: Media, publishing, data companies, etc.
Remember, these were the years before or just in the beginning of the mobile revolution after the iPhone launch in 2007.
Gradually, the mobile channel content consumption became so important that monolithic solutions became inadequate due to their sole focus on desktop websites.
In addition, the explosive increase in Javascript communities and libraries (early and mid 2010s) meant that beautiful, unique- looking and feature-rich websites and applications could be created at the fraction of the cost and the time.
These two major trends – mobile and JS – made the emergence of the API-first, or headless, CMS inevitable. The strategy made cross-channel content delivery possible and satisfied the hunger for more and more complex web-based applications with complex content structures. Also, it appeared to be the perfect balance between buying and building. Create the unique user-facing design and functionality without the burden of a building and maintaining a content backend and editorial interface.
Additional reasons to move to an API-first CMS and, generally, a microservices stack became aparent in the late 2010s and early 2020s. As shared in the 2022 and 2023 MACH Alliance Report (MACH Alliance report), the drivers of MACH are ambitions to improve customer experiences and platform speed. Satisfied users converting at a higher rate and website visitors not bouncing due to slow loading times are a central priority for global brands. Privacy and security follow closely, whereas the costs of maintaining existing systems are a lower priority.
Content API for multi-channel content distribution
CMS user management and authentication
Additional functions (e.g. search, analytics; plugins and extensions; custom integrations, API level; frontend functionality)
Content delivery network
Security and compliance (e.g. backups, versioning, audit logs, system health reporting)
#Monolith vs. Custom vs. Headless: A side-by-side comparison
A universal one-size-fits-all strategy does not exist. The balance has, obviously, shifted from Monolith and Custom to Headless. There are, however, multiple use cases and organizational setups where a different strategy is better.
Let’s look at how monolithic vs. custom vs. headless CMS compare to each other in terms of costs, flexibility, security, and more.
SaaS-Composing your solution is like buying paid insurance for customer satisfaction, performance and security
The composable SaaS model can be compared to buying insurance. Insurance that your product will be secure, that its component will have a high NPS and Performance rating, and that its components will already be battle-tested by thousands of other customers. You won’t be the experimental guinea pig alpha customer of the product. And if you build it, you are the only customer.
Alessandro CanessaHead of Developer Relations at Commerce Layer
Implementation costs and risks
Monolith
High licensing costs.
Often, self-hosting and server management
May require expertise related to the monolithic product and specific programming languages (e.g. extremely steep learning curve with solutions like AEM)
Custom
Requires highly skilled and experienced experts incl. software architects, backend and frontend engineers, UX experience designers, designers, project managers.
High initial uncertainty about functionality, scope, unknowns, and total costs of ownership.
Self-hosting and server management
Data and content modelling experise required
Large upfront investment
Headless
More widely available frontend developers are needed for setting up the frontend
Data and content modelling experise required
Homebrew CMS projects have gigantic hidden costs for HR, PM, design, and docs
Whereas licensing costs for services like hosting the database and the application are known, teams often neglect the complexity of projects which require manpower for research, coordination, project management, recruiting, design, implementation, ongoing maintenance, vulnerability management, creation, and maintenance of documentation. If you start a new, even just moderately complex, custom CMS project, you may need to hire an additional developer. At current market rates (2023) for recruiters or internal HR managers, with the onboarding costs in mind and having in mind the onboarding costs until full productivity, a new hire can easily cost 15-40k USD!
More importantly, your VP of Product has given you some timelines. A custom built-CMS project will take much longer and will require diverting resources from multiple people who are in completely different development cycles.
Marcos MelladoTechnical Director at Resn
Customization degree
Monolith
Low flexibility - limited ability to change admin interface, data schema and user-facing frontends.
Custom
You can custom-build your entire backend and frontend - editorial features, engineering, hosting, apps, etc.
Headless
Provides flexibility to set up workflows, pick hosting locations, and use app frameworks if available with vendor.
With some headless solutions, the customizability of the data schema is comparable to the customizability of a powerful database.
Use-facing frontends can be completely custom.
Comparison chart - what can be customized?
Capability
Custom CMS
Headless CMS
Traditional CMS
Data storage, modeling
✓
✓
Pre-defined types, page-centric
Content Management EX
✓
Partially
Partially
Content Delivery
✓
✓
-
Integrations
✓
✓
✓
Developer Experience DX
✓
Partially
Partially
Frontend Experience
✓
✓
-
Business Logic
✓
Partially
Partially
Security and Compliance
✓
-
-
How much customization do you actually need?
A manufacturing leader was moving away from Sitecore to a headless CMS. The 100+ item RFI Questionnaire had a detailed requirement about a particularly complex custom workflow. The content management team had strong feelings about mapping their Sitecore workflow to the new CMS. The business requirement could not be matched with either of the new alternatives.
“Give the out-of-the-box workflow of the headless CMS a chance. At least for the trial.” The team not only didn’t complain, but they were excited about how much easier the new workflow is. “It’s most likely going to be fine with everybody. It is so not true that content teams can’t adapt. They can learn and unlearn.” Requirements are often mixed with current (inefficient) experiences.
“I do this now, so the new system has to do it. Ultimately, so many customizations come from wrong requirements not groomed and clarified properly.”
Alessandro CanessaHead of Developer Relations at Commerce Layer
Frontend flexibility
Monolith
Either only templates or frontend frameworks with limited availability of engineers. Either not multi-channel or has limited API capabilities
Custom
Unique frontends, can deliver to any channels via custom API
Headless
Unique frontends, can deliver to any channels via custom API
Are you aware of all the edge cases that building a new custom CMS will involve?
Years ago, Danone decided to launch a store locator picker experience on their website. Initially, an engineering team was tasked to build it all using only partially external APIs like the GoogleMaps API. Only after a major pushback did the team realize that the scalability of their application would be a major issue and that they were not even aware of all edge cases related to the applications’ business logic. It was decided to go for a commercial SaaS vendor.
What user interactions make sense? Who will be in charge of research and design? What vulnerabilities may emerge if you build the application? Do you intend to have your application security audited? What are your application’s implications on SEO? How do you guarantee scalability? How much time will you dedicate to building the solution, and maintaining it? How much time are you ready to dedicate if the solution goes down.
Marcos MelladoTechnical Director at Resn
Web vitals/application performance
Vendor lock-in
Monolith
High migration costs, organizations often opt for stepwise move
Content structures need to be redesigned completely and the frontend rebuilt from scratch.
Custom
Huge dependency on the internal team who outlined, designed, developed and documented the system.
In the case of a migration, little of the custom code can be salvaged. Data can be exported at an increased cost.
Headless
API-first systems are more easily replaceable, generalist developers sufficient (e.g. JS and API knowledge).
Data can be exported easily via the REST or GraphQL API in a standard format.
Frontend code usually reusable with a different API.
Expert knowledge for your stack
Monolith
A pool of engineers who have worked with the specific monolithic CMS solution and the specific programming languages required for its operation
Custom
Your internal team who built and maintains the custom system
New engineers have to undergo a rigorous and prolonged onboarding on the system
Headless
A large pool of frontend developers
Knowledge of the CMS system and its API is usually not required unless a proprietary API format.
Content complexity
Monolith
Mostly content model templates.
Custom
The creator of the CMS has full theoretic flexibility to use any database and create any custom data structures.
Headless
Very high flexibility to create custom data structures. Some CMSs support bi-directional references between models (e.g. Hygraph)
If you build a custom CMS, only your team will share feedback about improvements and bugs. You will always be the one to uncover issues and won’t rely on a large community of previous users who already made the product better.
Alexander NaydenovHead of Global Enablement at Hygraph
CMS user community
Monolith
Thousands of users reporting issues. Wide-spread monolithic CMS around since early 2000-2005. Technical documentation is reliable, complete and constantly updated.
Custom
Only 1 company uses the system and reports issues. Documentation is sometimes missing or not updated on a regular basis.
Headless
Thousands of users reporting issues. First headless CMSs around since 2014. Technical documentation is reliable, complete and constantly updated.
Maintenance costs
Monolith
Competition between monoliths and new entrants keeps prices and quality in check.
Custom
The entire codebase and docs have to be maintained, bugs fixed, improvements created from scratch by the company who built the system.
Headless
High competition between new and old vendors - for improving the products, fixing bugs, securing systems.
While industry leaders often hike prices for existing customers, price pressure for new contracts is high and costs lower.
Maintenance costs for the frontend.
Security
Monolith
Usually audited and certified, but higher risk due to aggregation of data in the hands of one vendor
Custom
Multiple security experts need to be involved for ensuring a solution is truly secure.
Little incentive to get independently audited
Headless
Massive competition amongst vendors, incl. the smallest ones, to get security audited and certified.
Diversification of data hosting responsibilities (e.g. ecommerce vs cms data) reduces the risk of all data being exposed if an attack is successful
Security of composed solutions is the highest among CMS approaches
The claim “composable is less secure” than a monolithic solution or homebrew is rather weak. Nowaday, all of your vendors will be SOC2 compliant or ISO27001 certified. The growing security certification and audit industry is creating strong competition among even the smallest of vendors to take data privacy and security seriously. Do you intend to audit your own implementation? Do you have multiple inhouse experts taking care of security?
By separating responsibilities among several software components you are literally diversifying. Different vendors have different permission and access levels to different segments of your data. This is not the case with either a single monolithic vendor, or your own custom solution.
Are all your eggs in one basket or in multiple baskets?
Alessandro CanessaHead of Developer Relations at Commerce Layer
Hygraph is the first GraphQL-native Headless Content Platform, enabling teams across the world to rapidly build and deliver tomorrow’s multi-channel digital experiences at scale.
It was designed for removing traditional content management pain points by using the power of GraphQL, and take the idea of a Headless CMS to the next level. Hygraph integrates with any frontend technology, such as React, Vue and Svelte.
Get started with Hygraph by creating a free account, learn how our customers are solving real-world problems, gather information about next-generation CMS from our resources or academy, or learn more about the applications of Hygraph.
To discuss how Hygraph can help you transform your digital projects, reach out to us.
Get started for free, or request a demo to discuss larger projects
A comprehensive guide on choosing the CMS that suits your need
+2
Last updated by Alex, Alessandro & 1 more
on Mar 27, 2026
Originally written by Alex, Alessandro & 1 more
Let’s make one thing clear: nobody has to write software from scratch nowadays.
The beautiful and unique frontend of a website relies on multiple JS libraries, the most custom backend application relies on multiple open-source or proprietary microservices and products, and the entire application is, probably, hosted in the software universe of a cloud provider.
Still, how do you stay unique and differentiated in design and functionality if all is off-the-shelf microservices? How can you shine with a strong digital strategy, how do you become future-proof and less dependent on one single monolithic vendor?
Well, Build versus Buy is a range. All strategies are somewhere in-between.
There are software elements that may be core to your strategy, product, or brand that have to be customized and unique (e.g. the appearance of your digital property). And there are elements that merely assist you (e.g. your CMS, your payment solution). They are not your core capability and should not be created or maintained by you.
If we look into the content management world, there are three distinct strategies: a monolithic solution (a vendor gives you the frontend and the backend), a custom-built “homebrew” CMS (you create and maintain both frontend, and backend), and a customizable API-first, headless CMS (you create the frontend, a vendor gives you a very configurable backend with a content API).
This ebook reviews the three CMS strategies: monolithic, custom, and headless. We will compare these three options and examine the factors organizations overlook when making their selection. Caveat: no-code page-builder tools for small organizations are not under review in this guide.
The 2000s and early 2010s were a time where large businesses relied on either a monolithic CMS (e.g. Sitecore), or a custom, self-built system. Standard use cases e.g. corporate marketing, meant that going for a monolithic system was the safest option. In contrast, custom CMSs, “homebrew” ones, were built by content-heavy businesses for non-standard use cases: media, publishing, data companies, etc.
Custom CMSs used to be built by content-heavy businesses for non-standard use cases: Media, publishing, data companies, etc.
Remember, these were the years before or just in the beginning of the mobile revolution after the iPhone launch in 2007.
Gradually, the mobile channel content consumption became so important that monolithic solutions became inadequate due to their sole focus on desktop websites.
In addition, the explosive increase in Javascript communities and libraries (early and mid 2010s) meant that beautiful, unique- looking and feature-rich websites and applications could be created at the fraction of the cost and the time.
These two major trends – mobile and JS – made the emergence of the API-first, or headless, CMS inevitable. The strategy made cross-channel content delivery possible and satisfied the hunger for more and more complex web-based applications with complex content structures. Also, it appeared to be the perfect balance between buying and building. Create the unique user-facing design and functionality without the burden of a building and maintaining a content backend and editorial interface.
Additional reasons to move to an API-first CMS and, generally, a microservices stack became aparent in the late 2010s and early 2020s. As shared in the 2022 and 2023 MACH Alliance Report (MACH Alliance report), the drivers of MACH are ambitions to improve customer experiences and platform speed. Satisfied users converting at a higher rate and website visitors not bouncing due to slow loading times are a central priority for global brands. Privacy and security follow closely, whereas the costs of maintaining existing systems are a lower priority.
Content API for multi-channel content distribution
CMS user management and authentication
Additional functions (e.g. search, analytics; plugins and extensions; custom integrations, API level; frontend functionality)
Content delivery network
Security and compliance (e.g. backups, versioning, audit logs, system health reporting)
#Monolith vs. Custom vs. Headless: A side-by-side comparison
A universal one-size-fits-all strategy does not exist. The balance has, obviously, shifted from Monolith and Custom to Headless. There are, however, multiple use cases and organizational setups where a different strategy is better.
Let’s look at how monolithic vs. custom vs. headless CMS compare to each other in terms of costs, flexibility, security, and more.
SaaS-Composing your solution is like buying paid insurance for customer satisfaction, performance and security
The composable SaaS model can be compared to buying insurance. Insurance that your product will be secure, that its component will have a high NPS and Performance rating, and that its components will already be battle-tested by thousands of other customers. You won’t be the experimental guinea pig alpha customer of the product. And if you build it, you are the only customer.
Alessandro CanessaHead of Developer Relations at Commerce Layer
Implementation costs and risks
Monolith
High licensing costs.
Often, self-hosting and server management
May require expertise related to the monolithic product and specific programming languages (e.g. extremely steep learning curve with solutions like AEM)
Custom
Requires highly skilled and experienced experts incl. software architects, backend and frontend engineers, UX experience designers, designers, project managers.
High initial uncertainty about functionality, scope, unknowns, and total costs of ownership.
Self-hosting and server management
Data and content modelling experise required
Large upfront investment
Headless
More widely available frontend developers are needed for setting up the frontend
Data and content modelling experise required
Homebrew CMS projects have gigantic hidden costs for HR, PM, design, and docs
Whereas licensing costs for services like hosting the database and the application are known, teams often neglect the complexity of projects which require manpower for research, coordination, project management, recruiting, design, implementation, ongoing maintenance, vulnerability management, creation, and maintenance of documentation. If you start a new, even just moderately complex, custom CMS project, you may need to hire an additional developer. At current market rates (2023) for recruiters or internal HR managers, with the onboarding costs in mind and having in mind the onboarding costs until full productivity, a new hire can easily cost 15-40k USD!
More importantly, your VP of Product has given you some timelines. A custom built-CMS project will take much longer and will require diverting resources from multiple people who are in completely different development cycles.
Marcos MelladoTechnical Director at Resn
Customization degree
Monolith
Low flexibility - limited ability to change admin interface, data schema and user-facing frontends.
Custom
You can custom-build your entire backend and frontend - editorial features, engineering, hosting, apps, etc.
Headless
Provides flexibility to set up workflows, pick hosting locations, and use app frameworks if available with vendor.
With some headless solutions, the customizability of the data schema is comparable to the customizability of a powerful database.
Use-facing frontends can be completely custom.
Comparison chart - what can be customized?
Capability
Custom CMS
Headless CMS
Traditional CMS
Data storage, modeling
✓
✓
Pre-defined types, page-centric
Content Management EX
✓
Partially
Partially
Content Delivery
✓
✓
-
Integrations
✓
✓
✓
Developer Experience DX
✓
Partially
Partially
Frontend Experience
✓
✓
-
Business Logic
✓
Partially
Partially
Security and Compliance
✓
-
-
How much customization do you actually need?
A manufacturing leader was moving away from Sitecore to a headless CMS. The 100+ item RFI Questionnaire had a detailed requirement about a particularly complex custom workflow. The content management team had strong feelings about mapping their Sitecore workflow to the new CMS. The business requirement could not be matched with either of the new alternatives.
“Give the out-of-the-box workflow of the headless CMS a chance. At least for the trial.” The team not only didn’t complain, but they were excited about how much easier the new workflow is. “It’s most likely going to be fine with everybody. It is so not true that content teams can’t adapt. They can learn and unlearn.” Requirements are often mixed with current (inefficient) experiences.
“I do this now, so the new system has to do it. Ultimately, so many customizations come from wrong requirements not groomed and clarified properly.”
Alessandro CanessaHead of Developer Relations at Commerce Layer
Frontend flexibility
Monolith
Either only templates or frontend frameworks with limited availability of engineers. Either not multi-channel or has limited API capabilities
Custom
Unique frontends, can deliver to any channels via custom API
Headless
Unique frontends, can deliver to any channels via custom API
Are you aware of all the edge cases that building a new custom CMS will involve?
Years ago, Danone decided to launch a store locator picker experience on their website. Initially, an engineering team was tasked to build it all using only partially external APIs like the GoogleMaps API. Only after a major pushback did the team realize that the scalability of their application would be a major issue and that they were not even aware of all edge cases related to the applications’ business logic. It was decided to go for a commercial SaaS vendor.
What user interactions make sense? Who will be in charge of research and design? What vulnerabilities may emerge if you build the application? Do you intend to have your application security audited? What are your application’s implications on SEO? How do you guarantee scalability? How much time will you dedicate to building the solution, and maintaining it? How much time are you ready to dedicate if the solution goes down.
Marcos MelladoTechnical Director at Resn
Web vitals/application performance
Vendor lock-in
Monolith
High migration costs, organizations often opt for stepwise move
Content structures need to be redesigned completely and the frontend rebuilt from scratch.
Custom
Huge dependency on the internal team who outlined, designed, developed and documented the system.
In the case of a migration, little of the custom code can be salvaged. Data can be exported at an increased cost.
Headless
API-first systems are more easily replaceable, generalist developers sufficient (e.g. JS and API knowledge).
Data can be exported easily via the REST or GraphQL API in a standard format.
Frontend code usually reusable with a different API.
Expert knowledge for your stack
Monolith
A pool of engineers who have worked with the specific monolithic CMS solution and the specific programming languages required for its operation
Custom
Your internal team who built and maintains the custom system
New engineers have to undergo a rigorous and prolonged onboarding on the system
Headless
A large pool of frontend developers
Knowledge of the CMS system and its API is usually not required unless a proprietary API format.
Content complexity
Monolith
Mostly content model templates.
Custom
The creator of the CMS has full theoretic flexibility to use any database and create any custom data structures.
Headless
Very high flexibility to create custom data structures. Some CMSs support bi-directional references between models (e.g. Hygraph)
If you build a custom CMS, only your team will share feedback about improvements and bugs. You will always be the one to uncover issues and won’t rely on a large community of previous users who already made the product better.
Alexander NaydenovHead of Global Enablement at Hygraph
CMS user community
Monolith
Thousands of users reporting issues. Wide-spread monolithic CMS around since early 2000-2005. Technical documentation is reliable, complete and constantly updated.
Custom
Only 1 company uses the system and reports issues. Documentation is sometimes missing or not updated on a regular basis.
Headless
Thousands of users reporting issues. First headless CMSs around since 2014. Technical documentation is reliable, complete and constantly updated.
Maintenance costs
Monolith
Competition between monoliths and new entrants keeps prices and quality in check.
Custom
The entire codebase and docs have to be maintained, bugs fixed, improvements created from scratch by the company who built the system.
Headless
High competition between new and old vendors - for improving the products, fixing bugs, securing systems.
While industry leaders often hike prices for existing customers, price pressure for new contracts is high and costs lower.
Maintenance costs for the frontend.
Security
Monolith
Usually audited and certified, but higher risk due to aggregation of data in the hands of one vendor
Custom
Multiple security experts need to be involved for ensuring a solution is truly secure.
Little incentive to get independently audited
Headless
Massive competition amongst vendors, incl. the smallest ones, to get security audited and certified.
Diversification of data hosting responsibilities (e.g. ecommerce vs cms data) reduces the risk of all data being exposed if an attack is successful
Security of composed solutions is the highest among CMS approaches
The claim “composable is less secure” than a monolithic solution or homebrew is rather weak. Nowaday, all of your vendors will be SOC2 compliant or ISO27001 certified. The growing security certification and audit industry is creating strong competition among even the smallest of vendors to take data privacy and security seriously. Do you intend to audit your own implementation? Do you have multiple inhouse experts taking care of security?
By separating responsibilities among several software components you are literally diversifying. Different vendors have different permission and access levels to different segments of your data. This is not the case with either a single monolithic vendor, or your own custom solution.
Are all your eggs in one basket or in multiple baskets?
Alessandro CanessaHead of Developer Relations at Commerce Layer
Hygraph is the first GraphQL-native Headless Content Platform, enabling teams across the world to rapidly build and deliver tomorrow’s multi-channel digital experiences at scale.
It was designed for removing traditional content management pain points by using the power of GraphQL, and take the idea of a Headless CMS to the next level. Hygraph integrates with any frontend technology, such as React, Vue and Svelte.
Get started with Hygraph by creating a free account, learn how our customers are solving real-world problems, gather information about next-generation CMS from our resources or academy, or learn more about the applications of Hygraph.
To discuss how Hygraph can help you transform your digital projects, reach out to us.
Get started for free, or request a demo to discuss larger projects