In a previous article, we explored whether you should use a CMS at all or consider building something custom. But the conversation doesn’t stop there. Today, many teams face an additional choice: stick with a traditional CMS, adopt a headless CMS, or build a fully custom solution. Each approach has unique strengths, trade-offs, and ideal scenarios. Let’s walk through them and outline a practical framework for deciding.

Traditional CMS

Examples: WordPress, Drupal, Sitecore XP

  • Strengths: All-in-one systems for content creation, editing, and delivery. Non-technical users can easily publish and update pages. Large ecosystems of plugins and themes speed up development.
  • Weaknesses: Can be bloated, slower, or harder to scale. Customizations may complicate upgrades. You’re limited by the CMS’s architecture.
  • Best for: Marketing-driven sites, blogs, corporate sites, and organizations where content editors need independence from developers.

Headless CMS

Examples: Contentful, Sanity, Strapi, Prismic

  • Strengths: Content is stored centrally and delivered via APIs, letting developers use modern frameworks (React, Next.js, Svelte, etc.) for the front end. Scales well across web, mobile, apps, and even IoT devices.
  • Weaknesses: Non-technical editors may find the experience less intuitive than traditional CMS interfaces. Requires more developer involvement to create templates and integrations.
  • Best for: Multi-channel publishing, companies needing flexibility across platforms, teams with strong front-end developers.

Custom Solution

Examples: Hand-coded sites, static site generators with minimal backends

  • Strengths: Maximum control, minimal overhead, potentially faster performance. No vendor lock-in.
  • Weaknesses: Every feature must be built or integrated manually. Content updates require developer involvement unless you layer in editing tools.
  • Best for: Simple sites, proof-of-concepts, or projects where performance and lean code matter more than rich features.

How to Decide

To make a choice, evaluate your project against three key questions:

  1. Who will update the content? Non-technical editors usually favor traditional CMS; developer-heavy teams may lean custom or headless.
  2. Where will the content live? If you need to publish across multiple platforms, headless is often the best choice.
  3. How complex are your requirements? Advanced features like personalization, multilingual support, or multi-site management push you toward traditional or headless CMS options. Simpler needs may justify custom.

Framework for Decision

Here’s a quick rule of thumb:

  • Traditional CMS: Content-heavy sites, marketing teams, and organizations prioritizing ease of use.
  • Headless CMS: Multi-platform delivery, developer-driven teams, and projects needing future flexibility.
  • Custom Solution: Lightweight projects, performance-critical sites, or teams who prefer full control.

Conclusion

No single approach is universally right or wrong. The best choice depends on your team’s skills, your audience, and the long-term goals of your project. Traditional CMS, headless CMS, and custom builds each shine in different contexts. Use this framework to evaluate your needs, and you’ll be able to make a more confident, future-proof decision.