DecapCMS vs Strapi

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.

Highly customizable with a variety of plugins and a strong API.

Strapi is open-source and has a strong developer community.

Good for SEO with features to enhance visibility.

Flexibility in terms of integrating various databases.

Developer-friendly with extensive documentation and community 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.

Performance issues when dealing with large datasets.

Steep learning curve for beginners due to API complexities.

Customization can be a burden on developers if complex features are needed.

Limited roles in the free version, which can be frustrating.

Strapi's opinionated structure can be limiting compared to more flexible alternatives.

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.

Users appreciate the ease of creating content with the block editor, allowing for quick layouts and adjustments.

The new rich-text editor allows for more control and flexibility in content management, enhancing the user experience.

Dynamic zones empower editors to create adaptable and creative designs without needing developer intervention.

The latest updates are aimed at improving the editing experience, including inline editing and better integration with front-end frameworks.

Users find the block-based editor better than traditional textarea fields, enhancing productivity in content creation.

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 rich-text editor's markdown support can be challenging for content editors unfamiliar with markdown.

Some users mentioned difficulty in using the inline media embeds within the new editor features.

Review workflows in Strapi can be cumbersome and are often seen as inadequate for larger teams or complex projects.

Content blocks in the alpha version may not function as intuitively as users expect, leading to frustration.

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.

Easy to get started; many features auto-generate for CRUD operations.

Great for non-developers to manage content due to user management features.

The plugin system allows for easy installation of features like authentication and media management.

Good for rapid prototyping with a modern content management interface.

Supports REST and GraphQL endpoints automatically, reducing backend work.

The content management UI is generally user-friendly, making it easy for content teams.

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.

Users found the UI clunky, causing inefficiency during large-scale operations.

Version upgrades can be complicated, leading to potential project delays.

Some users experienced slow response times with large data sets.

Lack of database migration support makes larger projects harder to manage.

Strapi's GraphQL integration requires additional handling for errors, unlike REST.

The need for a well-designed data structure is crucial for performance.