Framer CMS vs ButterCMS

Framer combines UX design capabilities with staging and publishing features, making it an excellent web design tool.

Framer is particularly well-suited for small teams and freelancers focused on design-centric projects.

Offers a simple, intuitive design interface that’s similar to tools like Figma, making it easy for designers to adopt.

Users appreciate the design flexibility and user-friendliness for creating visually appealing websites.

The community aspect of Framer is growing, providing ample resources for users to learn and collaborate.

Framer’s CMS allows for a variety of dynamic content management capabilities.

User-friendly content types and blog engine make it easier to manage content effectively.

Built-in SEO features that simplify optimization for search engines.

High user ratings for support and ease of use, reflecting a positive user experience.

Offers a clean and intuitive user interface that facilitates easy navigation and content management.

Supports multiple environments for efficient content management and project deployment.

Has a robust media library that simplifies media management and editing.

Users find the pricing structure to be restrictive, especially with limited CMS collections for lower tiers.

Framer lacks relational database capabilities, making complex content structures difficult to manage.

Framer lacks advanced features found in competitors like Webflow, which has a significantly higher CMS item limit.

The lack of re-usable components can lead to redundancy and inefficiency in design.

Users report issues with slow updates and functionality, leading to frustrations with the platform.

Framer's basic analytics and SEO features are less comprehensive compared to competitors, limiting performance tracking abilities.

The platform is prone to technical issues that can disrupt project progress, causing dissatisfaction among users.

Expectations for e-commerce solutions are unmet, as Framer does not currently support this functionality.

Requires a paid add-on for features like bot detection and caching, increasing costs unexpectedly.

Limited autosave functionality may lead to data loss during content creation.

Some users find editor options unscrollable, affecting usability.

Limited rich text editing options can be a drawback for content creators.

Scaling content can be challenging as user needs grow.

Initial setup may require extensive developer involvement, complicating the onboarding process for less technical teams.

Cost can be higher due to needing separate payments for developers and hosting infrastructure.

Users appreciate the ease of creating and managing collections and items in the CMS.

Framer’s interface is noted as snappy and makes web design enjoyable.

Framer allows easy scalability of designs through its CMS, making it suitable for repetitive content.

The user interface is regarded as superior for interacting with items in the CMS compared to competitors.

Users find it easy to link and create detailed pages from collections.

Importing data into the CMS is user-friendly, enhancing the overall experience.

The WYSIWYG editor is user-friendly and allows for easy formatting and image handling.

The intuitive interface makes it easy for marketers to create complex pages using drag-and-drop components.

Preview mode and interactive guides enhance the user experience for content creators.

Flexibility in creating custom content types helps teams tailor their content management.

Limited number of CMS collections based on the pricing tier frustrates users.

Some features lack beginner-friendly guidance, causing confusion among new users.

There are limitations in terms of advanced features like dynamic filtering of items.

Framer’s CMS still lacks the robustness and advanced field types found in other platforms like Webflow.

Users indicate a need for better support and documentation to help navigate complex features.

Some users reported sluggishness in complex edits, despite the overall snappiness.

Limited to a certain number of content fields even on higher plans, which can be a restriction for larger teams.

The localization and webhook settings are hard to find in the UI, complicating the user experience.

Some users find the UI could be more polished and intuitive for better navigation.

Users expressed a desire for more extensive customization options in the editing interface.

Framer allows easy sorting of CMS items by various fields like text strings, dates, etc.

CMS allows for dynamic content management with customizable fields to enhance user experience.

The CMS supports filtering collections easily, enhancing content presentation.

Users can import data from CSV files, making it easy to bring content into Framer.

Dynamic references in CMS allow linking of content across collections, making management easier.

Building a CMS page is straightforward, especially for those familiar with design tools like Figma.

ButterCMS is recognized for its fast implementation and ease of use, particularly for marketing teams.

Users found ButterCMS easy to integrate with Rails, emphasizing its clear API and documentation.

The integration process with TailwindCSS and ButterCMS was described as manageable with clear guides available.

Provides extensive SDKs and documentation to facilitate integration with various frameworks.

The CMS offers a user-friendly WYSIWYG editor, simplifying content management for users.

ButterCMS allows easy access and management of media assets via integrations like Cloudinary.

Recent updates broke some superfields components, leading to issues in large collections.

Users reported difficulties with updating components after new Framer updates.

Support response times are slow, making troubleshooting issues frustrating for users.

Framer lacks advanced features compared to other CMS solutions, limiting user capabilities.

Integration with third-party tools is limited, affecting the user experience.

Users expressed concerns over the stability of CMS features post-update.

The interface could benefit from more intuitive navigation for settings like localization.

A user highlighted potential difficulties for those new to Rails when integrating a CMS like ButterCMS.

Some users expressed concerns over the complexity of integrating with existing Rails apps instead of building the CMS functionality in Rails.

Despite easy setup, users may find limitations on the number of content fields per plan frustrating.