Jekyll vs DecapCMS

Jekyll is simple and effective for creating static websites and blogs without needing a database.

The Jekyll Admin plugin is useful for testing, even if not suitable for production.

CloudCannon integrates well with Jekyll for hosting sites, offering more control and better performance.

Users appreciate Jekyll's performance, specifically its speed and capability to produce static sites quickly.

Jekyll works seamlessly with Netlify CMS for managing content in a user-friendly manner.

Community feedback suggests Jekyll provides excellent ownership and portability of the website content.

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.

Jekyll requires knowledge of GitHub which can be a barrier for new users, making authoring and editing challenging.

The content editor in CloudCannon can be slow and resource-heavy, affecting the user experience.

Some users find Jekyll difficult to customize compared to other CMS options, especially for users without a tech background.

Managing images and files can pose challenges in Jekyll compared to other CMS platforms with better UI.

Editing content can be cumbersome due to not easily allowing in-browser previews.

Jekyll’s reliance on the command line makes it less accessible for non-coders compared to other CMS platforms.

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 can create content without coding knowledge.

JekyllPad offers a WYSIWYG editor for easier content management.

Static site generators provide better control over design for editors.

JekyllPad integrates GitHub for seamless syncing of edits.

Flexible publishing workflows allow content teams to collaborate easily.

Users appreciate the ease of designing custom components visually.

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.

Technical performance optimization requires some planning and knowledge.

Building themes may require CSS knowledge.

Less technical users struggle with day-to-day content management.

Customization can lead to unanticipated issues when themes are updated.

Some features require third-party integration, adding complexity.

Editing markdown can be daunting for some users.

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.

Jekyll integrates well with various headless CMS options for content management.

Users appreciate Jekyll's flexible integration with many services and libraries.

Setting up Netlify CMS with Jekyll can help simplify the user interface for non-technical users.

The community around Jekyll is helpful and provides extensive plugins for various needs.

Ease of deployment via GitHub Pages makes it user-friendly for developers.

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.

Users find the setup complicated, especially when integrating with services like Netlify.

Markdown content management can be difficult and doesn't sync easily back to Git.

The need for Git can be a barrier for non-technical users.

Users report limitations in adding dynamic functionality without external services.

Jekyll does not inherently support commenting and requires workarounds for this feature.

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.