Amaxus CMS (discontinued) vs. Netlify CMS

Amaxus is well suited as a development platform and content management system for companies who have a dedicated, experienced development team because it has such complex functionality. It is not well suited for companies whose main content updater will be a person with limited development experience, because it is so hard to learn and understand how to use.

Incentivized

Netlify CMS is well suited when you have very less frequent updates to your content, maybe once a day and very few people need to access your data. You can connect it to Netlify, GitHub, or any platform and have multiple people access it and do as many updates as you wish, but the process is not well-defined and you need to build your own system for that. It is well suited for projects you need to pull off with very low cost, it is essentially free as the software is open source and free to use, and all you need to do is set up your schema correctly and find a deployment pipeline where you can build your static site/API to redeploy whenever the content changes. I personally used a GitHub Login -> Netlify CMS -> next app consumer of content -> GitHub pipelines to run next SSG -> GitHub Pages to deploy the built static site. It might not be appropriate for large teams where users themselves need no-code tools to modify the schema of the content.

Incentivized

• There is a lot of flexibility and power with what you can do.
• The client has a lot of power to make changes on their own without needing a development team.

Incentivized

• Storing content data in customized schema without a database
• Full control over your content and infrastructure where it is deployed and stored
• Very low-cost way for building your own CMS and CDN

Incentivized

• There is a huge learning curve for developers. All our new website builds were going beyond the timeline because of the learning curve.
• It is very complex and teaching our clients how to use it required several training sessions.

Incentivized

• Linking between different schema types, i.e. having some relations between content
• Better ways to define content schema, like how TinaCMS would handle using a JSON

Incentivized

I have used an in-house CMS which was very simple and only allowed the user to update very basic templated content, and I have used Sitecore, which is sort of like a middle-of-the-road. Sitecore is great because it allows for the user to have a lot of control over templates and updating content, but it's not so complex that it is very difficult and time-consuming to learn how to use, like Amaxus.

Incentivized

We really can't compare it to full-fledged CMS software, like WordPress, which has a lot of community and support with widgets, plugins, and whatnot. It's not built for that, but you can compare it to Contentful, Ghost, Strapi, etc., which provide similar functionality to a headless CMS with custom schema options, but even among them, it still lacks a lot of functionality, ease of use, and support. But Netlify CMS pros would be of the opinion that compared to other platforms where most schemas need to use their own tools and frameworks, it's very cost-effective. Something new called TinaCMS has come up to compete with Netlify CMS by covering most of its shortcomings, but it's something new being built by the same team that built Forestry CMS and comes with many modern features, yet currently only supports NextJS SSG.

Incentivized

• It has a negative impact because it put us back on our timelines.
• It had a negative impact because our customers didn't like the learning curve to use it.
• It had a negative impact because it caused so much stress among our team to learn it.

Incentivized

• Helped us inject dynamic content into existing site very quickly
• Wasted a lot of time to implement when something complex, such as querying content, was needed

Incentivized