DecapCMS vs Payload CMS

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.

Payload CMS is praised for its open-source nature and fast support, allowing great customization.

Payload CMS is recognized for its end-to-end type safety ensured by TypeScript, extensive Plugin support, and intuitive user experience.

Payload CMS offers a clean and customizable user interface, making it approachable for users.

Users appreciate Payload CMS for its flexibility and powerful features suitable for complex content management.

The active community for Payload CMS helps foster enhancements and extensions, adding a layer of support.

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.

Users report missing functionalities such as bulk uploads and live collaboration features, indicating areas for improvement.

Some users find that Payload CMS lacks pre-built examples and extensive documentation, which can hinder the onboarding process.

The complexity of Payload's flexible architecture may lead some users to initially feel overwhelmed or confused.

New users who are not familiar with Next.js may find it challenging to adapt to Payload CMS's code-based customization approach.

The young age of Payload CMS means it may lack some enterprise-grade features compared to more established competitors.

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.

Payload allows full customization of the admin UI and integrates well with React, providing a clean editing experience.

Autosave feature ensures that changes are saved automatically, which enhances user confidence during editing.

Users appreciate the flexibility in creating custom fields, which can enhance the editing experience for specialized needs.

Versions and drafts features allow easy management and restoration of content, providing a safety net for edits.

Comprehensive API support (REST and GraphQL) allows for dynamic content management through custom applications.

The community offers support, making it easier for new users to learn and adapt to the platform's complexities.

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.

Beginners find it challenging to set up basic features, such as image resizing in the rich text editor, without custom coding.

Some users struggle with the lack of built-in features like component rendering which are expected in mature CMSs.

Feedback indicates that the documentation does not sufficiently support users in understanding advanced features.

Users express frustration with the time needed to implement basic functionalities, making it feel like a beta product.

The requirement to integrate third-party services for file storage can be cumbersome compared to other CMS options.

Complex hierarchies in nested fields can create confusion for content editors, impacting usability.

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.

Payload provides a clean interface and simple setup for developers, especially for those familiar with Next.js.

Highly customizable and extensible, allowing users to define schemas programmatically.

Self-hosted options are appealing for users wanting to maintain control of their backend.

API generation is automatic based on user-defined configurations, simplifying integration.

Offers a clean, customizable user interface making it easy for developers to get started.

Easy setup and straightforward for TypeScript developers, aligning well with modern development practices.

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.

The documentation is seen as incomplete and lacking depth for advanced features.

Users often face performance issues and have to restart the server frequently during development.

Users reported that integration with plugins can cause unexpected behavior and bugs.

Limited third-party integrations noted as a drawback for some user implementations.

Users mentioned needing significant technical ability to fully leverage its features and capabilities.

Users expressed concerns about support and community responses for troubleshooting issues.