Acoustic Content (formerly IBM Watson Content Hub) vs Contentful

• It has a wide variety of built-in API calls.
• Building unique pages is simple and straightforward and requires only basic fundamental knowledge to get started.
• More advanced API calls can be developed simply.

Read full review

• Clean, modern interface (not clunky and outdated, like WordPress)
• High degree of flexibility (I can structure data any way my clients need)
• Enables headless frontend (i.e. I can build any frontend I want without having to change my CMS)

Read full review

• It doesn't work well with our IBM systems and as you might expect, that seems to be a common problem with IBM products.
• Application settings are bad and some items are easily accessible and can be buried in menus

Read full review

• The new Contentful "branches" feature looked promising (it appears to mirror a git-like repository) but it requires the CLI, which isn't necessarily practical for teams that aren't current CLI users. It would be nice if the management of this feature were available via the UI (without that it causes more confusion than anything).
• The Contentful data modeling method makes for a bit of an awkward SDK developer experience in some strongly typed languages like Java. Most things that you might need can be accomplished, but it feels like the experience could be smoother.
• It would be nice if there were a way to migrate data between spaces (e.g. from your staging space to production).

Read full review

• Approved developer is a simple tool for integrating other end-user applications.
• It has allowed us to have one-stop-shop and easy-to-use debugging, saving time.

Read full review

• Positive: faster changes and new associates can easily navigate without prior training/knowledge of CMS to make content updates
• Negative: Our website manager/provider can keep certain abilities (like changing specific images) so they can charge a fee for making the change

Read full review