CommonSpot vs. Netlify CMS vs. OpenText Web CMS

Commonspot is well suited for web content management to be conducted by individuals with low-level web skills.

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

OpenText TeamSite is well-suited to large, enterprise-wide implementations where customization, content governance, and dynamic content distribution is needed or prioritized. It is probably not ideal for smaller sites with simple architecture and few resources to manage custom implementation.

Incentivized

• I think CommonSpot's greatest strength is its ease of use. It's relatively intuitive in it's usage, so it therefore makes it easy to train new people to use it.
• Within my usage of it, our options were limited, which again added to it's ease of use.

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

• The drag and drop forms feature makes publishing simple and quick.
• Preview of customer data before sending publications helps us to deliver personalized experiences.

Incentivized

• Commonspot needs to improve on its authoring feature. It is impossible to author on more than one page at a time . (One must always click on "View work on all changes") before switching between pages otherwise, the changes will not be saved.
• CommonSpot does not support sharing the definition of any custom element or any template layouts. Therefore, one must recreate these in each site.
• In Commonspot, a user who has to manage content in multiple sites will have to log in to each site to see and act on any actions.

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 recommendation for improvements.
• It is easy to work with all the features.
• All necessary content management tools are included.

Incentivized

I had no previous background in content management, and found it very easy to use. If I could figure it out, I am pretty certain that just about anyone else could as well.

Incentivized

Overall, it's a solid package with the potential to offer much functionality with appropriate resources applied. There are a few issues with the authoring interface that OpenText should address before its a top shelf authoring experience.

Incentivized

Our technical resources engage with OpenText TeamSite so I don't have direct experience. However, critical issues that we need help with seem to get the attention they deserve without issue. However, training and user resources for business owner roles are a bit lacking and some annoying issues with the authoring interface should be addressed sooner.

Incentivized

Commonspot works in tandem with Zendesk very well to accomplish tasks an an efficient manner.

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 offers more content editing features at a relatively low cost thus overall deployment is lower in cost. It has great customer support who are always there to support and answer to our needs thus making the process of deployment seamless at every stage and offering training for working with their product.

Incentivized

The annual contract should be clearer in terms of the breakdown of user license types (system admin, admin, regular user, etc).

Incentivized

• I was working in a religious institution and based upon our usage and audience, there was no ROI to speak of. Our usage was more for providing information than having any type of interaction. In that instance, it worked very well.

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

• We integrated with google analytics, now we have the proper comprehension of our audience data reception and behaviors - we've greatly improved on personalized marketing.
• Quick publication of content across the main digital channels.
• We run our digital campaigns swiftly.
• We've maintained our brand consistency for three years.

Incentivized