Contentful vs. PaperWeight

It's a great all rounder for content projects. It's easy in the basics and powerful in the complex, data heavy scenarios. Extending the platform is straightforward and the SDK gives you everything you need. If you have many many varying content types , it gets expensive and perhaps not the best choice .

Incentivized

Very easy to use and customize homepage, dashboard, and multiple landing pages of courses. Easy for setting up intuitive dashboards, rating users, and receiving ratings. Create and edit content or upload documents and make edits. Easy to segregate functions based on user roles. Multi-device support is not so seamless though overall it is responsive and scalable on the web.

Incentivized

• Flexible. This CMS can be easily extended and provide access to dynamic content
• Simple. The WYSWG is very easy to work with and identifying pages and content in the system is fairly easy
• Clean Interface. The interface is clean and uncluttered keeping focus on the content and not other factors.

Incentivized

• PaperWeight has amazing features for freelance reviewers who can provide insights on how a course can be structured using interactive content.
• PaperWeight is scalable, responsive, secure.
• Freelance reviewers find easy to use PaperWeight.
• We could also rate and provide feedback on the work delivered by freelancers which is visible to a group of users who can allocate future work based on the profile feedback.

Incentivized

• Contentful uses "references" to allow you to build very modular content. If I have a "slider" content type, I can create a "slide" content type which references a "button" content type, and so forth. This works well, but I occasionally wish there was a better solution for one-off content, like a settings page. Currently, this is done for creating an entire content type called "settings" with a single entry. Not a big deal, but not ideal, either.
• There are a few quirks with GatsbyJS integration, etc, but these issues are being fixed and improved upon very quickly.
• A minor gripe, but Contentful does not have a way to organize fields within an entry. Entries with many fields are somewhat tiresome to scroll through.

Incentivized

• PaperWeight could improve its usability experience across all devices. Sometimes there are some glitches when viewing on another device.

Incentivized

It is a very easy to use and configure application. I find that it is on the user to manage the content after the models have been created, yet I still do not encounter issues finding or creating new components for our site. It is easy to set up and easy to navigate.

Incentivized

Easy to use and much more organized as a single platform versus multi. The layout is clean and easy to read and we don’t have to worry about certain users safe guarding data or content then losing it when they leave the company. It’s a one stop shop for imagery

Incentivized

We like the light-weightedness of PaperWeight, scalability, and its ability to meet our needs at a reasonable cost. Pre-existing relationships and business process outcomes helped in making the decision to go with PaperWeight. The product roadmap being aligned with our own roadmap also was a huge factor in the decision-making in favor of PaperWeight.

Incentivized

• Contentful has saved us valuable development time that was previously spent doing deploys for minor content updates.
• Contentful has helped us maintain consistent documentation, reducing time needed to review for consistency.
• Can't say we've really experienced any negative ROI impacts from using Contentful, but we've run into some limitations in adding too many content models and the next pricing tier is substantially more expensive.

Incentivized

• It has [made it easy to] find freelancers for our course reviews.
• We can trust the reviewers who are onboarded on our portal and we feel safe to share business content with them on PaperWeight.
• We are able to prevent [unauthorised] downloads of our content.

Incentivized