Pros and Cons of Headless CMS

A headless CMS separates the content repository (the "body") from the presentation layer (the "head"). This decoupling allows content to be managed independently and delivered via APIs to various platforms and devices. We like to use the analogy of traditional restaurants vs dark kitchens to explain the difference in non-technical terms.

In a traditional restaurant, you have the kitchen preparing the food (the back end), and the place where you present the food, (the front end), in the same building. They’re linked together as one system, much like a ‘coupled’ CMS.

Headless CMS are like dark kitchens. Meals are cooked in one place, then delivered to another destination to be consumed. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. If you need to deliver food to lots of different places, a dark kitchen is the best choice. But if you’re a restaurant with a single dining area, putting the kitchen in a different building is adding unnecessary complexity.

A headless CMS is valuable to an organisation that needs to publish content across lots of different platforms. If you need your content management system to control not just your website, but also an app and digital displays or ‘Internet of Things’ devices, then separating the CMS from the front end and delivering content via API can be useful. This platform-agnostic approach provides valuable flexibility when managing content on a range of platforms, but these advantages come at a cost that isn't always justified.

One of the primary drawbacks of adopting a headless CMS is the increased complexity it introduces to your digital ecosystem. Managing two separate systems – the backend content repository and the frontend delivery application – essentially doubles your infrastructure concerns. This not only complicates development and deployment but also means more maintenance workload, and obviously extra spend on hosting.

The need for custom development on both ends of the spectrum often also leads to higher initial costs compared to traditional CMS solutions with built-in presentation layers. Teams need to have expertise across multiple technologies and frameworks, potentially straining resources and extending project timelines. Organisations frequently underestimate these complexities, resulting in budget overruns and delayed launches.

For projects primarily focused on web content delivery, this added layer of complexity can be overkill. Modern ‘coupled’ CMS platforms like Drupal have evolved to offer features like API integrations that meet the needs of most web projects without the added intricacies of a headless setup.

Content creators and editors often find themselves at a disadvantage in headless environments. The rich, intuitive interfaces they've grown accustomed to in traditional CMS platforms are often stripped down in headless solutions. Features like WYSIWYG editors, which make life easier for content managers, might be less sophisticated or entirely absent.

The lack of integrated preview capabilities can create a disconnect between content creation and presentation. Editors may struggle to visualise how their work will appear on the front end, potentially leading to inconsistencies and a less polished final product.

Implementing personalised and dynamic content presents another hurdle in headless architectures. Features like user authentication become more complex to implement. The splitting of the system for rendering the front end from the CMS makes it harder to deliver ‘logged in’ experiences, as doing so effectively means joining these systems back together.

While headless CMS architectures offer flexibility in frontend technologies, this freedom can come at the cost of performance. Many headless implementations rely heavily on JavaScript frameworks for client-side rendering, which can lead to slower initial load times. This not only impacts user experience but can also affect search engine optimisation efforts, as crawlers may struggle with client-side rendered content.

Headless CMS architectures have security advantages and drawbacks. Separating the content management and delivery systems can reduce the risk of attacks affecting both simultaneously, but it also expands the overall attack surface. Both the backend CMS and the frontend application need to be secured independently, requiring vigilant security practices across a broader spectrum of technologies.

Moreover, exposing content via APIs introduces additional security challenges. These APIs must be meticulously configured to prevent unauthorised access and protect sensitive data, adding another layer of complexity to the security landscape.

Adopting a headless CMS often means relying on third-party services, many of which are proprietary and offered as Software as a Service (SaaS). This dependence raises concerns about data portability, potential pricing changes, and the long-term viability of vendors. While open-source headless CMS options exist, they may not match the maturity or feature richness of established coupled CMS platforms.

Some believe that choosing a headless CMS will help futureproof your digital estate by making it easier to switch systems in future, but, this isn’t necessarily the case. While headless architectures promise the freedom to change frontend or backend systems independently, the reality is this still requires a lot of work. When building a headless project, so much development time goes into knitting the two systems together that they end up highly interlinked. This means it's not easy to swap out the front or back end, and so just like changing any CMS, it will be a big project.

For many projects, especially those primarily focused on web content delivery, a modern, coupled CMS remains the most practical choice. These integrated solutions offer a streamlined experience, allowing content creators to add, update, and preview content within a single platform.

Modern CMS platforms have evolved to offer flexibility through API endpoints for feeding content to other systems when needed. This allows for a hybrid approach, where standard pages are rendered by the CMS, but specific features can leverage the benefits of headless implementations when needed. To return to our restaurant metaphor— the restaurant can also operate a takeaway service with very little overhead!

Event pages are a good example of this. We often find it useful to create an events feed API that allows event information to be displayed on a wide range of digital platforms. This provides the cross-platform advantages of headless where they’re needed without adding the complexity of a headless architecture to the entire project.

While headless CMS architectures offer compelling advantages for certain scenarios, particularly for organisations requiring multi-platform content delivery, they are not the right choice for every project. The increased complexity, higher costs, potential performance issues, and challenges for content editors often outweigh the benefits for many use cases.

When you’re choosing a Content Management system, it's crucial to assess your project requirements and organisational needs carefully. Don't be swayed by tech trends alone. Instead, focus on finding the solution that provides the right balance of functionality, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness for your specific context. For many, a coupled CMS – with a hybrid approach where needed – will provide the most streamlined, user-friendly, and cost-effective path forward.

If you’re considering how to manage your content for your new website project, our team can help point you in the right direction. Get in touch via [email protected] with an outline of your digital project.