Choosing the right CMS is therefore not purely a question of tools, but rather a strategic decision. Typical key questions you should ask yourself:
- Are multiple teams working on the content at the same time?
- Are there approvals, legal reviews, or complex role and rights structures?
- Is content only displayed on one website or on multiple channels?
- Do external systems need to be connected (e.g., CRM, ERP, HR, analytics)?
- Are there requirements for data sovereignty, data security, auditability, hosting locations, or European data protection standards (e.g., GDPR, EU data sovereignty)?
- How likely is growth in the coming years?
- Is it foreseeable that new channels, markets, or requirements will be added?
Depending on the answers, priorities will shift significantly, and with them the appropriate CMS architecture.
The most important difference lies not in the range of functions, but in the architecture.
A monolithic CMS is primarily designed to operate a website. A headless CMS understands content as a central database for any number of channels. Content is maintained centrally in one place and distributed across all digital channels. At pemedia, we deliberately pursue a hybrid CMS approach for websites. This means that we use a headless CMS, but think of and develop the front end and content structure as a single system rather than two separate projects. This offers clear advantages, especially for projects of the scale we work on:
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) & Return on Investment (ROI)
Comparative economic efficiency
Costs are incurred not only through initial costs, but throughout the entire life cycle.
| Criterion | Monolithic CMS | Headless CMS |
|---|---|---|
| Initial costs | The initial costs are usually low, as setup, themes, and standard features are readily available. | The initial costs are higher because content structures, workflows, and front ends are designed individually. |
| Running costs (TCO) | As complexity increases, maintenance, update, and security costs rise, primarily due to plugin dependencies. | Running costs remain more stable in the long term, as many functions are core functions and there are fewer external dependencies. |
| Maintenance costs | Updates to the core, plugins, and themes must be coordinated regularly, which increases the maintenance effort. | Updates can be carried out in a more predictable manner, as the front end and back end are separated from each other. |
| Multi-channel costs | Multiple channels often lead to multiple instances or workarounds, which increases effort and costs. | Content is maintained once and distributed across multiple channels, avoiding additional systems and costs. |
| Security costs | Security vulnerabilities in plugins or themes can result in high follow-up costs. | Separating the content and output layers makes it easier to control security risks. However, the actual level of security depends heavily on hosting, configuration, and operation. |
| Short-term ROI | ROI is often achieved quickly for small or short-term projects. | The ROI comes later, as more investment is required at the outset. |
| Long-term ROI | As the term increases, the ROI decreases due to growing maintenance and adjustment costs. | Over the entire life cycle, ROI improves thanks to scalability and efficient content processes. |
| Growth & System Change | Major adjustments or new requirements often necessitate modifications or redesigns. | The system can grow without architectural changes, protecting long-term investments. |
Payload, Contentful, Storyblok, WordPress, TYPO3, and Contao
Direct comparison of CMS systems
Once the basic architectural decision has been made, the question arises as to which specific CMS best meets your requirements.
Decisive questions include:
- How secure is the system?
- How flexible is it when it comes to new requirements?
- How dependent will I be on providers, licenses, and plugins?
Architecture & Hosting
Architecture and hosting determine control, dependencies, and future viability.
| CMS | architecture | hosting | classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payload CMS | Headless | Self-hosted | Maximum control & flexibility |
| Contentful | Headless | SaaS only – subscription-based | Quick to get started, but vendor lock-in* |
| Storyblok | Headless | SaaS only – subscription-based | Quick to get started, but vendor lock-in* |
| WordPress | Monolithic | Self-hosted or SaaS (e.g., wordpress.com) | Easy to get started, but quickly growing maintenance and plugin costs |
| TYPO3 | Monolithic | Self-hosted | Very powerful & scalable, but highly complex |
| Contao | Monolithic | Self-hosted | Solid for classic websites, limited for complex requirements |
* Provider dependency here does not refer to the openness of the code, but rather to the commitment to a SaaS operating model. Systems such as Contentful or Storyblok can only be operated using the manufacturer's infrastructure and licensing models.
Security, Enterprise & Maintainability
Security and maintenance requirements determine whether a CMS can be operated in an enterprise environment.
| CMS | security model | Enterprise-ready | maintenance costs | External dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payload CMS | Clear separation of frontend and backend, API-based access. Security and infrastructure concepts fully configurable in your own hosting. | High: Full control over infrastructure, security, and enterprise compliance. Suitable for organizations with individual security, hosting, and audit requirements. | Predictable, many features in the core | Low |
| Contentful | SaaS-based security model, operated entirely by the provider. No control over infrastructure or hosting details. | High: Strong enterprise compliance, but SaaS-bound. ISO, SOC, and data protection standards are in place, but no control over infrastructure or hosting details. | Low, but dependent on the SaaS model | High (SaaS, vendor lock-in) |
| Storyblok | SaaS-based security model, operated entirely by the provider. No control over infrastructure or hosting details. | High: Strong enterprise compliance, but SaaS-bound. Suitable for enterprise setups with a focus on certifications, but no control over infrastructure or hosting details. | Low, but dependent on the SaaS model | High (SaaS, vendor lock-in) |
| WordPress | Frontend and backend are closely linked, security is highly dependent on hosting, configuration, and plugins used. Headless operation is technically possible, but requires additional plugins and customizations. | Low to medium: depending on setup, hosting, and plugin quality. Enterprise-ready only with significant additional effort and consistent technical safeguards. | Strong increase with number of plugins | Very high |
| TYPO3 | Highly sophisticated rights and security concept at the core, high granularity for roles and access. | High: Suitable for classic corporate websites with complex role and permission structures. | Highly specialized expertise required | means |
| Contao | Basic security mechanisms in the core, limited options for complex security setups. | Low: Not designed for enterprise security requirements. Suitable for smaller projects, less so for regulated or security-critical environments. | Manageable | Low |
Decision matrix
Which system suits your requirements?
The matrix serves as a guide to help you compare your own requirements with the characteristics of the systems.
| criterion | Payload CMS | Contentful | Storyblok | WordPress | TYPO3 | Contao |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-hosting possible | Fully self-hostable | Not possible, SaaS only | Not possible, SaaS only | Fully self-hostable | Fully self-hostable | Fully self-hostable |
| license | open source | Proprietary, license-bound | Proprietary, license-bound | open source | open source | open source |
| vendor lock-in | No vendor lock-in | vendor lock-in | vendor lock-in | No vendor lock-in | No vendor lock-in | No vendor lock-in |
| Plannable maintenance & updates | Can be planned independently | Depending on the provider | Depending on the provider | Can be planned independently | Can be planned independently | Can be planned independently |
| External dependencies | Low dependency | High dependence on the provider | High dependence on the provider | High dependency on plugins and updates | Moderate dependence | Moderate dependence |
| Content can be played on any number of channels | Optimized for multi-channel | Optimized for multi-channel | Possible, but not ideal for complex scenarios | Only with considerable additional effort | Not optimized for multi-channel | Not optimized for multi-channel |
| Future-proof growth | Designed for long-term growth and expansion | Scalable, but cost-driven by subscription model | Scalable, but cost-driven by subscription model | Quickly becomes complex and maintenance-intensive as it grows | Scalable but cumbersome | Not suitable for larger-scale applications |
| Suitable for enterprise security | Suitable for enterprise use with correct setup | Suitable for enterprises, but cost-driven by subscription model | Suitable for enterprises, but cost-driven by subscription model | Suitable for enterprise use, but only with very high additional effort | Not designed for enterprise security | Not designed for enterprise security |
| Complex roles & workflows | Freely moldable and flexible | Possible, but limited | Possible, but limited | Severely restricted | Highly suitable | Severely restricted |
| Many teams and organizational units | Well suited for large organizational structures | Limited suitability, cost-driven by subscription model | Limited suitability, cost-driven by subscription model | Unsuitable for many teams | Highly suitable | Unsuitable for many teams |
| Scalable content models | Freely moldable and stable over the long term | Possible, but structurally limited | Possible, but structurally limited | Difficult to maintain with increasing complexity | Possible, but costly | Highly limited |
| initial costs | Medium to high* | Medium to high* | Medium to high* | Low* | High* | Average* |
| Running costs (TCO) | Low* | Medium to high* | Medium to high* | Rising costs due to maintenance* | High* | Average* |
| Lifecycle ROI | High ROI* over a longer life cycle | Medium to high ROI* | Medium to high ROI* | Low ROI* | Low ROI* | Low ROI* |
*depending on individual requirements
Conclusion
There is no one right CMS for everyone.
Choosing a CMS is not just a question of software, but also a question of strategy.
Individual requirements, teams, security needs, and future plans are intertwined and can rarely be clarified with a generic comparison. But there are systems that are better suited to certain goals.
- WordPress & Contao are well suited for simple websites with manageable requirements, where fast implementation and low barriers to entry are paramount.
- TYPO3 is a proven solution for large, classic corporate websites with many editors and complex rights structures, but it involves a high degree of maintenance and complexity and is not designed for multi-channel scenarios.
- Contentful & Storyblok are powerful SaaS headless CMSs that enable a quick start and low operating costs, but at the same time create a strong bond with providers, infrastructure, and licensing models.
- Payload CMS is a self-hostable headless CMS for companies that want to manage content centrally and remain independent of SaaS providers in the long term. It offers a high degree of control, flexibility, and future-proofing, but requires more conceptual work and corresponding development effort at the start of the project.
Working together to make the right decision
We analyze your requirements and create a solid basis for decision-making.
If you're unsure, that's totally understandable! Choosing the right CMS is a very complex and highly individual matter. We're happy to support you with a one-on-one consultation.
In a joint CMS analysis, we will evaluate together:
- your professional and technical requirements
- growth and development plans
- Security, hosting, and business needs
We recommend a future-proof architecture that fits your goals.
Christoph Peiniger
Geschäftsführer Operations & Growth
Düsseldorf Office
Immermannstraße 59 40210 Düsseldorf Germany
Payload CMS Agency
We are your Payload CMS agency for future-proof digital platforms.
Strategic CMS consulting and technical implementation for digital ecosystems
As a specialized Payload CMS agency, we help companies strategically evaluate, implement, and further develop headless architectures over the long term. We see Payload CMS not only as a technical system, but also as a central building block of digital ecosystems in which content can be flexibly modeled, used across channels, and operated sustainably. Our expertise ranges from the strategic selection of suitable CMS architectures to technical implementation with Payload CMS to stable operation and continuous development. In doing so, we take into account requirements such as scalability, maintainability, security aspects, and integration into existing system landscapes. This results in digital platforms that meet today's requirements and can be further developed in the long term.
Frequently Asked Questions
scroll