Concrete CMS (formerly Concrete5) is a free and open source, PHP built content management system for content on the web and also for intranets. It is optimized to support the creation of online magazines and newspapers.
N/A
Contentstack
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Contentstack headquartered in San Francisco offers an API-first headless CMS. From desktops to smart phones, from kiosks to smart watches, from billboards to jumbotrons, from dashboards to VR headsets – content is delivered with the push of a button and optimized for every screen, device and channel.
My initial test was to time how long it took to create a very basic site from scratch with no prior knowledge. Concrete CMS won decisively. Over time, I've worked on projects that use other systems, and the challenges I encounter always affirm my choice to stay with Concrete …
WordPress is a basic blogging tool that has been hacked into a CMS, it is not as intuitive or comprehensive as Concrete CMS. It requires more updates and it can be harder to locate settings that the user needs. However, as a business, the WordPress team has been very …
ConcreteCMS is different from all other a used. all others have a specific purpose, like Odoo or Dolibarr for ERP/CRM, Magento Prestashop ... for e-commerce, GLPI and other CMMS for material management, and so on. Concrete CMS is usable for all, flexible, natively for CMS or …
I didn't have to spend too much time learning Concrete CMS, whereas I had to spend a long time learning other CMSs. After struggling to develop a plugin for WordPress, developing an add-on for Concrete CMS was piece of cake thanks to many available APIs. Making custom themes …
WordPress is a real nightmare, needs regular updates. Plugins almost need daily updates, you hardly can do anything in WordPress without a plugin. ConcreteCMS offers a solid, strong basis that already includes almost all functionality you need to develop and launch a site. And …
Easier to set up and manage. Easier to edit content. Not as feature-rich so it might not work for very special projects. Harder to get client buy-in when they only know Word Press. Great for quick projects, and for the right client more complex engagements. Free of complex …
Like I said before, Concrete5 is a system to build a more inclusive internet, with tools easier to manage. WordPress is a tool to make a blog and you need a lot of modifications to reach the basics of Concrete5. It's easier to work with concrete5 in many ways, both developing …
Concrete5 is much easier to use than Drupal and has more functionality set up out of the box with just enough add-ons to get the job done. I have used both WordPress and Drupal, and this sits between them. Concrete5 is not quite as easy as WordPress but much easier than Drupal …
We previously used Joomla! but found clients were struggling to find their way around the eding interface. Switching to Concrete5 changed this and we now have fewer support issues and much more positive feedback from clients.
Concrete5 was far easier to use than alternatives--which is very important when handling support issues for clients. As a developer, the architecture makes it easier to extend the core functions elegantly without overwriting core code. Although a few other CMS platforms have …
Front-end web design & development, graphic design
Chose Concrete CMS
I select Concrete5 when working with an experienced PHP-developer. The code is exceptionally well-written and to my clients, C5 is a secure, easy to edit platform for websites that do not have a too high dependence on third-party plugins.
Wordpress at the time was riddled with security breaches in the news and while Concrete5 was smaller (and therefore a smaller attack vector), after eleven years of use, Concrete5 has only had one published incident with an add-on that resolved within hours and with excellent …
If your web team is tired of dealing with CMS training issues, you need to consider Concrete5. If your technical team and host are tired of dealing with website security issues, you need to consider Concrete5. If you're pulling your hair out over frequent update patches …
Concrete is better than all this for its UX and code base. The feature set is rich and you don't need loads of third-party plugins. It never gets hacked and is updated by a core team or is accessible via email or Slack. Has a great community backing it up and with good support …
Concrete5 is by far the easiest for the end user. The user who edits the website can do so with very little training and not just with regards to the content. New pages and functions are easy to create and install. SEOand contact form functions are built in as standard.
I adopted Concrete5 after an end-user trial. With a variety of well known and lesser known CMS (including the above) in their fresh install state, I asked a group of users to register an account and then add a page with some text and an image on it. Concrete5 came out top by a …
Concrete5 is superior in most usecases to all other commonly used CMS platforms. The only thing where Joomla is outpreforming it is bulk editing. WordPress needs at least 20 plugins to do what Concrete5 does out of the box.
Programming C5 templates and custom views is a dream, …
Wordpress is much easier to use but I feel that it has less to offer. If you are looking for an easy WYSIWYG web site editor, Wordpress is probably a great option. If you are looking for something a little more robust, Concrete5 may be an option to look in to.
Concrete5's UI is a bit more dated compared to Wordpress, and the ecosystem for plugins is smaller. But out of the box, Concrete5 does more with its clean code than Wordpress does. Wordpress's UI and large plugin/community around it is its biggest strength as a product, not the …
Concrete5 is easier to use than Drupal or Joomla, and beats them in terms of features. WordPress gives Concrete5 a run for its money as far as extension and theme availability, as well as user base and support availability. But Concrete5 beats Wordpress hands down with features …
Contentstack has better international hosting support then Contentful and we found the presales and sales support people were MUCH more responsive than Contentful. The Sitecore sales process was very very slow and overly complex. We felt Sitecore had many features that …
When we wanted to move to headless we took a look and tested some of the offerings available for headless CMS. Many do have similar features and services and so for us it came down to how Contentstack built a business relationship and service around their clients. We were given …
Featurewise, there's not a lot that separates these CMSs, and it's hard to assess in a SW selection phase exactly how the products stack up against each other. Ultimately, the choice of Contentstack came down to the dialogue with the sales rep.
Before deciding on Contentstack, we researched some tools, we chose it because of the ease of creating and changing content, the API options for querying content, the ease of modeling new content APIs, high capacity of the CDN to deliver content, ease of integration with other …
Concrete5 is perfect for a website that needs to be regularly updated without accessing the code, whether that be because a developer created your site for you, or because you yourself are a developer who wants to keep the time spent on updates down.
In my experience, it's less useful for modern web apps such as PWAs that would benefit more from technologies such as React and Vue.
Contentstack has flexible functionality which opens up a lot of possibilities for businesses with proactive web development teams to create their own website builder app to compete with 3rd party agencies. This is especially useful in a large enterprise where non-technical teams often turn to expensive outside agencies which cost more in the long run than an up-front investment into an in-house application.
Concrete5 has a modular editing system, so you can edit the pages without having knowledge of coding. You just pick the module you want to insert or edit and click where you want it to go.
You are able to edit modules in an HTML format if you would like to, so if you have the knowledge you can have even more control over your modules.
You can also edit entire page themes by selecting them from the page layout menu. This allows you a greater versatility of the pages on your site.
The user interface is intuitive and cleanly designed.
The functionality is flexible which allows us to build our own application behind the CMS that meets business needs without being restricted by limitations in the CMS.
The service we get from our Account Manager and Technical contacts is excellent.
Concrete5.6 websites have no good path to migrate to 5.7, short of manual content migration. This is a big problem and affected the user community negatively.
Some features that were available as paid add-ons in 5.6, such as discussion forums and e-commerce shopping cart, are missing from newer versions 5.7/5.8.
Starting to develop add-ons and customizations for Concrete5 can be challenging as 5.7/5.8 documentation is not yet complete.
In my opinion it's not very intuitive. I've found its difficult to understand how to best structure entries, especially if they are related
In my experience, entries can get difficult to understand if weren't the creator. It would be helpful to have some meta data around the entry itself and the fields within them in my opinion.
Integration with an A/B testing platform would be nice.
I have had nothing but good experiences with Concrete5. I have used it on several client websites and even several of my own sites. It is the leading CMS I will go to if I have a need to dynamically update content on a website by people who are typically untrained. They have solved every angst I had with the other solutions I have evaluated in the past and continue to be the simplest to implement and customize.
Although there is a slight learning curve (as with any software), it is very easy to use once you get a hold of it. It is easy to upload and manage files (and other digital assets), and the drag-n-drop interface on the front-end is easy for end-users to understand
Since it's not tied to a central server (other than for authorizing updates and assigning licenses to specific sites), it's available pretty much 100% of the time.
The site works extremely well, the front end flies, searches and form submissions are very fast indeed. The reason its a 9 not a ten? the back end can be a little slow at times, and this is unfair, because for the backend to be so amazing, it has to do a huge amount of work!
Concrete5 is open-source and has an incredibly strong, polite, and supportive community. You can get an answer to nearly anything you want to do with Concrete5 by googling for it, searching the Concrete5 discussion forums or stack overflow, or posting your question to the forum. Members are very courteous and do not look down on those with less knowledge. And answers are always quick, informative, and supportive.
They have an in-app chat with their support team, who is always quick to respond and provide helpful answers. I've never walked away from an interaction without my issue being solved quickly and easily. They're also very communicative over email and are sure to follow up after any changes are made to ensure we're seeing the desired result. They are always very professional and easy to work with.
It's important that any CMS is implemented by a skilled developer. Content management is not a commodity. One of the keys I've found with Concrete5 is to create a homogenous content-entry method (e.g. focus on in-context editing OR focus on using the Composer feature). This seems to make it more likely that site editors will be able to easily come back to editing after a layoff without having to "remember" too much.
I didn't have to spend too much time learning Concrete CMS, whereas I had to spend a long time learning other CMSs. After struggling to develop a plugin for WordPress, developing an add-on for Concrete CMS was piece of cake thanks to many available APIs. Making custom themes and blocks was much easier than WordPress.
Contentstack has better international hosting support then Contentful and we found the presales and sales support people were MUCH more responsive than Contentful. The Sitecore sales process was very very slow and overly complex. We felt Sitecore had many features that were not valuable and the cost to benefit ratio was much lower compared to ContentStack
We are able to prepare for large campaigns within a few days which can bel rolled our within a few clicks. This was previously never possible before we moved to Contentstack.
We now have the tools and ability to architect in a way to take advantage of SEO and drive traffic. Our blog now serves more traffic that the rest of our website. This SEO effort wasn't possible before Contentstack.
One of our KPI's for moving to headless was a faster website and we now deliver pages under our original target while serving more asset and content rich pages to visitors