Web
Choose on who edits, how often, and what the content has to feed. Feature comparisons rarely decide anything useful, because most platforms in the category can do most things.
If a marketing team must publish without a developer, the editing and preview experience is the deciding criterion, and it is exactly what headless platforms trade away unless someone builds it. Getting this wrong produces a fast site nobody can update.
Daily publishing needs workflow, roles and scheduling. Quarterly updates need almost none of that, and paying for a platform built around editorial workflow is paying for governance you will not use.
Content serving one website is a different problem from content feeding a site, an app and a partner feed. The second is the genuine case for separating content from presentation; the first usually is not.
Then the constraints that are expensive to discover later
That last question is worth asking before signing, not after.
Only if content genuinely serves more than one destination, or the front end has requirements a conventional platform cannot meet. For one website and a small team, the extra moving parts rarely pay for themselves.
What migrating away looks like. Content locked in a proprietary structure with no clean export turns the next decision into a rebuild.
Choose on who edits, how often, and what the content has to feed. Feature comparisons rarely decide anything useful, because most platforms in the category can do most things.
You have read what we think. If you want to know what it means for your case specifically, describe it and we will tell you which parts of how to choose a cms actually apply — and which do not.
