Crafter CMS vs DecapCMS

Craft CMS offers robust multilingual support and a powerful Matrix field type that allows for endless customization.

Craft CMS provides a better development experience with a clean canvas for template development compared to WordPress.

Craft’s custom fields and UI are praised for their intuitive design, making it easier to manage content types effectively.

Decap CMS is praised for its straightforward installation process and its fast, web-based UI that includes rich-text editing and real-time preview capabilities.

The product offers a git-centric workflow that is ideal for static site generation, which helps in tracking, versioning, and managing content changes.

Decap CMS is recognized for cross-platform capabilities, allowing integration with various static site generators and meta-frameworks.

Users can create unlimited custom content types, which adds a level of flexibility not available in many other CMS platforms.

The platform supports multiple languages, making it a good option for international websites.

It provides a simple interface for managing content, which is helpful for developers and content creators without extensive technical knowledge.

The Craft CMS update process is described as inconsistent and often problematic, causing frustration during updates.

Getting support for Craft and developer availability is limited compared to WordPress, making it more challenging to find help when needed.

Users cite difficulty with importing content into Craft, citing bugs that can lead to formatting issues in WYSIWYG fields.

The complexity of developing custom functionalities in Craft compared to WordPress is a common critique among developers.

Some developers express a preference for the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) in WordPress, which they find more powerful and user-friendly than Craft's offerings.

Decap CMS may not be ideal for larger or more complex projects due to its feature limitations compared to traditional CMS platforms.

The lack of built-in support for advanced content workflows is seen as a drawback by some users.

Some users note that a solid understanding of Git is necessary to get the most out of Decap CMS, which could deter non-technical users.

Documentation can sometimes be difficult to follow, which may hinder new users during setup and operation.

Continued development and improvements are needed, with bugs that might need addressing as it is still evolving as a platform.

The CMS is less equipped in terms of various integrations compared to more established CMS solutions, making it less versatile in certain scenarios.

Craft's author experience is exceptional, featuring a straightforward fields and sections structure that simplifies content management.

Craft's editor provides a side-by-side view that updates in real-time as content is edited, enhancing the authoring experience.

Craft's handling of entry relations is smoother than in WordPress, allowing for more intuitive linking of content.

Craft's built-in Feed Me component allows easy content import from various formats, simplifying data management for authors.

Craft allows for easy multi-site management and localization, which is less complex compared to other CMSs.

The database schema in Craft can be saved as a YAML file, allowing for easier environment synchronization during development.

Users appreciate the rich-text editing capability and real-time preview feature, enhancing the editing process.

Achieved high user satisfaction scores, indicating a positive reception of its intuitive interface and extensive features.

Highlighted the CMS ability to work seamlessly with various static site generators, enhancing usability for developers and content creators.

Users mentioned ease of configuration and deployment when setting up Decap CMS for Hugo sites, appreciating the flexibility it offers.

Some marketers find Craft's rigid structure a hindrance, as it requires developer intervention for content updates.

A common complaint is the lack of out-of-the-box SEO tools comparable to plugins like Yoast on WordPress.

Craft's customization can lead to complexity, and some users may feel overwhelmed by the features available to developers.

Despite Craft's advantages, its smaller community often limits the resources available compared to more established CMS platforms.

Some users report dissatisfaction with Craft's plugin ecosystem, particularly regarding support and updates for third-party plugins.

Critics mention Craft's pricing model as a barrier, as ongoing costs can accumulate significantly, especially for teams on a budget.

Users experience difficulties with the initial setup, indicating that it can be complicated for non-technical users.

Some users reported a lack of polish in the UI, indicating a need for improvement in user experience design.

Concerns over the interface's complexity were raised, suggesting that not all features are intuitive for new users.

Users noted that content management can become cumbersome without clear navigation, leading to frustration during editing.

The blocks structure allows flexibility in building pages.

User-friendly interface for content creation, making it easier for non-technical users to adapt.

Craft allows for the integration of forms through plugins like Formie.

Customization is possible through thousands of available plugins and APIs.

High standards for plugins ensure reliability and security in integrations.

Real-time updates in the editing mode improve workflow.

Simple installation and setup with YAML configuration.

Integrates seamlessly with static site generators like Hugo.

Offers easy integration with static site generators.

Lightweight and minimalist, great for developers.

User interface is easy to navigate for developers.

Version control and Git integration facilitates workflow.

Fewer plugins available compared to WordPress leading to limited out-of-the-box functionality.

The learning curve can be steep for new users.

Dependency on custom integrations for specific features may deter users.

Custom integrations might be needed for connecting to third-party services like Dynamics 365.

Some users consider the initial setup cumbersome despite powerful features.

Some features may require extensive development knowledge for proper implementation.

Requires understanding of Git which may be a barrier for non-technical users.

Less user-friendly for non-technical users compared to traditional CMS.

Lacks built-in support for complex content workflows.

Customization can be cumbersome without coding knowledge.

May require additional integration efforts for digital marketing tools.

Limited templates may hinder some users.