Magnolia vs Caisy

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.

Caisy is a headless CMS that is user-friendly and supports multiple languages, making it easy for content creators to manage their digital content.

The component-based architecture allows for reusability, which is beneficial for users looking to create various page types without starting from scratch.

Caisy's emphasis on multi-tenancy makes it particularly advantageous for agencies, providing seamless management of multiple sites under one roof.

Caisy provides a robust set of features including localization, content scheduling, and versioning which significantly enhance the content management experience.

The auto-save feature for previous versions helps ensure that users can experiment without the risk of losing their work.

The company provides a high level of customer support to aid users with any questions they may have about the product.

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 have reported that the documentation could be more comprehensive, making it challenging for new users to fully utilize the CMS.

Some users have mentioned that the learning curve can be steep for those unfamiliar with headless CMS technologies.

The project limitations on lower-tier plans may hinder users who prefer to manage a variety of smaller projects.

The startup status of Caisy means that the user community is still growing, leading to limited peer support compared to larger established CMS platforms.

At this time, Caisy lacks a standalone REST API, which some users have requested for added flexibility.

Some users have expressed a desire for more starter templates to assist with project initiation and user experience enhancement.

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.

The multi-tenancy feature allows efficient management of multiple sites under one roof.

Intuitive schema builder for creating custom content models with various field types, enabling effective content management.

Features a robust image editor for convenient last-minute adjustments during content creation.

Offers auto-saving content during edits, allowing for easy version comparisons.

Aesthetically pleasing and intuitive UI that enhances user experience for content creators.

Comprehensive localization features for managing multilingual content effortlessly.

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.

Documentation could be improved, making it difficult for newer users to navigate some features.

Some users report a steep learning curve which can deter new users from fully utilizing the platform.

Limited starter templates available, making it harder for new users to begin their projects quickly.

The dashboard layout can feel cluttered, making it hard to access certain fields at a glance.

Lacks a standalone REST API, which some developers may find limiting.

User community is still growing, resulting in slower responses for less common inquiries.

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.

Robust features and user-friendly design enhance integration.

Offers schema builder and easy API integration.

Seamless integration with popular frontend frameworks.

Clear step-by-step guides for frontend integration.

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.

Documentation is limited and could be improved.

Migrating content can require careful planning and execution.

Learning the system can present a steep learning curve.

Reports of performance issues during integration.