Framer CMS vs Sanity

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.

Sanity offers a highly customizable solution for complex projects, appealing to developers looking for tailored solutions.

Users appreciate the fair pricing tier of Sanity, making it a solid choice for those on a budget.

Sanity's API-driven architecture provides flexibility and scalability for growing projects.

The potential for integrating various features into a personalized setup is a strong point of Sanity.

Sanity's pricing tiers allow for gradual scaling, providing a low-cost solution with ample room for growth.

The product is seen as capable of handling complex requirements which might not be as straightforward in traditional CMS solutions.

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.

Lack of TypeScript support is seen as a significant drawback, making development cumbersome.

Users report that the flexibility of the CMS can lead to complexity that makes simple tasks more difficult.

The interface and documentation are reportedly difficult to navigate, contributing to a steep learning curve.

Many users express frustration with the complexity of creating back-end structures compared to simpler CMS tools.

The lack of built-in backup features is a recurring complaint among users, making data management stressful.

Sanity may not cater well to smaller businesses or less technical users due to its complexity and configuration 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.

Customizable editor interfaces for unique client needs.

Seamless integration with Next.js for dynamic and optimized performance.

Real-time collaboration enhances workflow and content management.

Strong support for asset management, including images and dynamic content.

Well-documented APIs for easy integration and management of assets.

Clear performance metrics with optimized content delivery.

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 report a steep learning curve due to extensive customization options.

Lack of video support can frustrate users needing comprehensive media options.

Users may experience difficulties with data synchronization and schema updates.

Complex pricing model can confuse new users.

Some new users find the setup and initial configuration challenging.

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.

Users appreciate Sanity's flexibility and scalability for projects.

Offers a good API-driven free plan that's suitable for small sites.

Users find Sanity's image optimization features impressive.

Well-regarded for its technical capabilities and flexibility for developers.

The user interface is generally liked for its ease in creating and managing content.

Users mention a robust community and resources for troubleshooting.

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.

Some users find the setup to be too technical, especially for smaller sites.

Integration with Next.js can be difficult if you're not familiar with JavaScript.

Limited user authentication options have been noted as a drawback.

Users have complained about slow performance in the UI when handling larger datasets.

Some find documentation lacking in certain areas, leading to confusion during integration.

High costs can be an issue, especially as the project scales beyond free tier limits.