Medium vs Framer CMS

Easy to use and supportive community for writers.

Valuable learning resource for data science topics.

Potential for writers to earn income from their articles.

A community where writers can showcase their talent.

Variety of topics and user engagement.

Good platform for beginner writers to start their journey.

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.

Poor customer service and high volume of bots.

Difficulties with subscriptions and account management.

Frustration with content quality and relevance.

Management's lack of communication with users.

Quality of articles varies, with many being superficial or repetitive.

Frustration with the paywall.

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.

Users appreciate the autosave feature, although it can be confusing if they don't know if their story is saved.

The editor allows for flexibility in content creation, which is beneficial for writers.

Medium's editor is seen as a good platform for building a portfolio and gaining a following.

A redesign in the editing experience aims to make tool accessibility clearer for users.

Successful articles often include personalized insights, enhancing the editorial experience.

Users can achieve significant views and earnings from well-promoted articles.

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.

Many users find the editing functions confusing and buried in the interface.

The publication management interface is not intuitive, making it hard for editors to navigate.

Writers often struggle to gain visibility without existing followings.

Users express frustration with the platform's promotional aspects, feeling it's a gamble.

New writers may not have enough visibility to attract readers, making articles feel unsupported.

Users wish for better feedback mechanisms after publishing their articles.

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.

Wagtail's admin interface can coexist with existing Django admin interfaces, facilitating integration.

Payload CMS allows flexible configurations when setting up in existing environments.

Middleware setup within the community is being continuously improved, showing commitment.

Good documentation exists for integrating Wagtail with various plugins.

Integration steps for Headless CMS are clear and well-outlined.

Community support and shared experiences provide practical insights.

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.

Django-CMS lacks direct integration guidance for existing Django applications.

Payload requires additional setups for storage which complicates integration.

Payload CMS documentation remains incomplete for advanced integrations.

Missing rich text serializer is a common pain point in Payload integration.

Wagtail’s complex setup can be a drawback for beginners.

Users report difficulties finding quality examples and documentation.

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.