Framer CMS vs Magnolia

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.

Magnolia is a highly customizable product ideal for maintaining content across multiple websites.

Users appreciate the high quality in the development of new features and fast response to service requests.

Users find the user-friendly interface to provide a positive experience while managing content.

Magnolia provides strong technical support and rich features such as multilingual support.

The product is recognized for its enterprise-grade reliability and security, making it suitable for large brands.

Content commerce is emphasized for creating captivating shopping experiences that drive conversions.

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.

Some users highlight the high costs and less satisfactory after-sale service.

Comments mention that the platform can be heavy and bloated, leading to performance issues.

Some reviewers found the migration to other systems necessary for cost-level agreements.

Users have reported complications in utilizing the system's advanced features effectively.

Integration of diverse tools into the Magnolia system can be complex and require significant technical knowledge.

The platform has limitations for smaller companies due to its complexity and performance requirements.

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.

Magnolia provides a clear and user-friendly WYSIWYG editor which simplifies content creation.

The content editor framework allows for intuitive app-based content management.

Users appreciate Magnolia's ability to connect to multiple data sources for content reuse.

Magnolia is committed to accessibility, enhancing the UI for all users.

Offers flexibility without the complexity of other CMS platforms like Adobe AEM.

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.

Some users find the overall user interface to be outdated and basic compared to modern standards.

Some users report challenges with the platform's documentation being insufficient for complex features.

Customizability can sometimes create confusion for non-technical users.

The UI and features are still in the process of full accessibility compliance, affecting some users.

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.

Standardized UI for all integrations makes it easy for team members to learn.

Rich integration API available for deep customization.

Good fit for organizations with existing Java infrastructure.

Offers a comprehensive integration framework.

Flexible and customizable for enterprise-level integration needs.

Integration support for various platforms, enabling omnichannel experiences.

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.

Requires significant engineering support for customizations, limiting flexibility for non-technical users.

Users reported that deeper functionalities may need extensive configuration.

Some find it less user-friendly compared to other CMS solutions like Contentful or Strapi.

Integration complexities can arise, especially when extending functionalities.

The learning curve can be steep for non-technical users trying to utilize all features.

Navigation of API and integration points can be overwhelming without prior knowledge.