Contentstack vs. RWS Tridion Sites

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
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.N/A
RWS Tridion Sites
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
RWS Tridion Sites provides web content management capabilities, connecting people, processes, and information across teams, brands, and markets, to deliver impactful online experiences globally. RWS Tridion Sites' DPX platform enables the use of either traditional or headless publishing. It includes advanced features such as automated personalization, multilingual capabilities and Semantic AI. The BluePrinting® technology at the core of RWS Tridion Sites simplifies reuse and…N/A
Pricing
ContentstackRWS Tridion Sites
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
ContentstackRWS Tridion Sites
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
ContentstackRWS Tridion Sites
Considered Both Products
Contentstack
Chose Contentstack
Contentstack is very user-friendly and modern.
Chose Contentstack
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 …
Chose Contentstack
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 …
Chose Contentstack
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.
Chose Contentstack
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 …
RWS Tridion Sites
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
Interwoven teamsites, Documentum, Adobe - teamsites and documentum are old and limited. Adobe rocks but I like where I am and Tridion does a lot of the same things. No need to reinvent the wheel or move to a lateral product.
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
It is a nuclear missile compared to the other handguns and knives on the market today. But it also requires nuclear technicians and expertise that a handgun doesn't require. Do you need to decimate your competition and you have the investment capabilities necessary to put a …
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
Tridion is much better for multi-site installations, though Sitecore is a bit easier for content editors to know content types are being used based on visual icon indicators. We've had content editors pick the wrong templates by accident, but Sitecore's visual indicator …
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
Adobe CQ is SDL Tridion main competitor. Sitecore is designed for smaller companys. Adobe CQ is all java and thus has limitations. Sitecore is also all .net and has limitations. Both use a dynamic model and everything is compiled at runtime. SDL Tridion can be published in a …
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
Tridion again seemed to be more enterprise level then EpiServer, EpiServer allowed for faster ramp up time of a intuitive .NET framework, but Tridion seemed to have more tools and overall functionality once the CMS was customized towards the needs of the customer.
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
I did not play a role in selecting this product so I can't say how it stacked up. I do know that Tridion is an improvement over the last CMS.
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
I feel that SDL Tridion's User Interface is to difficult for content authors to understand. I worked with a client that used Tridion for years and she still would get lost in the UI and had to ask questions. There was close to 30% of continual time spent on the project simply …
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
SDL Tridion is far superior to CommonSpot. It is much more user friendly and increases efficiency.
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
I believe the biggest selling factor for SDL was its customer service and it ability to be responsive. We knew that it was a company that was going to be around for a long time and would continue to provide the support that we would need in the long term.
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
Tridion's strength is really hosting multiple websites across development, test stage and production.
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
The decision to purchase Tridion was made at a corporate level removed from the technical teams. Against our previous open source solution, this has been wildly expensive, impossible to find experienced developers for, and has required completely retooling our organization.
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
SDL has a better API and also handles high server load much better. Also, the built-in integrations for translations are more suited for performing lots of translations for many sites. However, Umbraco, like Tridion, has a great community and finding solutions with both …
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
We didn't chose WordPress because can't handle the traffic we generate. Sitecore is what we are currently looking at and it looks like a much better alternative to Tridion.
Chose RWS Tridion Sites
Adobe does a great job in managing sites. Its user interface for authors is intuitive and leaps and bounds better than SDL Tridions new 2013 UI. The ease of install and management makes Adobe CQ a much better product. However, Adobe CQ (AEM) has limitations. It cannot scale as …
Features
ContentstackRWS Tridion Sites
Security
Comparison of Security features of Product A and Product B
Contentstack
7.4
Ratings
9% below category average
RWS Tridion Sites
9.0
Ratings
11% above category average
Role-based user permissions7.40 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Platform & Infrastructure
Comparison of Platform & Infrastructure features of Product A and Product B
Contentstack
7.5
Ratings
1% below category average
RWS Tridion Sites
9.1
Ratings
18% above category average
API8.10 Ratings8.30 Ratings
Internationalization / multi-language6.90 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Web Content Creation
Comparison of Web Content Creation features of Product A and Product B
Contentstack
8.1
Ratings
5% above category average
RWS Tridion Sites
8.5
Ratings
10% above category average
WYSIWYG editor8.10 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Code quality / cleanliness10.00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Admin section7.70 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Page templates7.70 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Library of website themes10.00 Ratings8.20 Ratings
Mobile optimization / responsive design6.60 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Publishing workflow6.80 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Form generator00 Ratings8.30 Ratings
Web Content Management
Comparison of Web Content Management features of Product A and Product B
Contentstack
6.4
Ratings
14% below category average
RWS Tridion Sites
7.6
Ratings
3% above category average
Content taxonomy7.20 Ratings9.00 Ratings
SEO support6.40 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Bulk management5.70 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Availability / breadth of extensions6.50 Ratings8.30 Ratings
Community / comment management6.10 Ratings3.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
ContentstackRWS Tridion Sites
Small Businesses
ManageWP
ManageWP
Score 10.0 out of 10
ManageWP
ManageWP
Score 10.0 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
RWS Tridion Sites
RWS Tridion Sites
Score 9.0 out of 10
Bloomreach - The Agentic Platform for Personalization
Bloomreach - The Agentic Platform for Personalization
Score 8.5 out of 10
Enterprises
RWS Tridion Sites
RWS Tridion Sites
Score 9.0 out of 10
OpenText Web CMS
OpenText Web CMS
Score 5.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
ContentstackRWS Tridion Sites
Likelihood to Recommend
9.5
(0 ratings)
9.9
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
6.3
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
8.5
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.2
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
ContentstackRWS Tridion Sites
Likelihood to Recommend
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.
Read full review
SDL Tridion works well for organizations with a large website with a lot of content to continuously create and manage. The use of page templates and component presentations makes creating new pages fairly straightforward. It can be a little cumbersome when it comes to trying to "break from the norm" and build web pages that are outside of the template-driven format; however, there are ways around this to create pages that break away from the normal page-template format of the website. In this regard, SDL Tridion can be pretty flexible, allowing us to create a lot of custom functionality to keep up with constantly changing web trends.
Read full review
Pros
  • 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.
Read full review
  • Makes it easy to spin up a new site quickly
  • Allows for numerous users to work on the same site without conflicting with each other's changes
  • Allows you to unpublish changes or revert to old versions if you make a mistake
  • Allows you to time publishing actions (for example, you can set it to happen overnight)
Read full review
Cons
  • 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.
Read full review
  • If you are hoping to orbit the planet with a CMS, Tridion is built to leave the solar system. It is a very very powerful solution built for very serious enterprise businesses in hope of robust capabilities, which could be good or bad.
  • Supporting business users is a hefty lift and requires significant training and regular retraining, and support.
  • It's a niche solution that originally came out of Europe and was largely unknown in America. But today it's growing in popularity across the United States.
  • Finding capable support, and developers specializing in Tridion capabilities isn't always easy. And 8 years ago it was nearly impossible, involving finding European developer support shops in order to get the assistance needed. This is changing though and American developer firms are becoming more widely available.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
I am giving this a semi-high rating because we have already got Tridion up and running and we are still in the process of moving the sites over to Tridion. It is unlikely we will be moving things to a new CMS AGAIN in the near future as the cost to get Tridion was high.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
The editor user interface is very user friendly and in-site editing makes simple updates fast and easy. The extensibility of Tridion is a big plus and the ability to add our own options into the default Tridion interface helps us integrate with external systems. Finally, the user permissions and security system helps us deploy it within our large organization.
Read full review
Support Rating
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.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
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
Read full review
Interwoven teamsites, Documentum, Adobe - teamsites and documentum are old and limited. Adobe rocks but I like where I am and Tridion does a lot of the same things. No need to reinvent the wheel or move to a lateral product.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • 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
Read full review
  • SDL is a very complex system. Creating custom components by external vendors turned out to be expensive.
  • The learning curve is very slow, so training takes a lot of time and cost.
  • The revamped corporate site looks clean, modern, and is mobile-friendly.
Read full review
ScreenShots