Skip to main content
Contact us
National Digital home
Book a callContact us

1300 800 855enquiries@nationaldigital.com.au

Having trouble? Open the scheduler in a new tab

Hub · 2 guides

Contentful, Storyblok, Statamic, Payload or Strapi: Choosing a Headless CMS

Six platforms get shortlisted for most headless CMS projects, and feature tables rarely say which one an editorial team can actually use.

Quick answer:Contentful, Storyblok, Statamic, Payload and Strapi fit different authoring, hosting and cost needs; choice should follow a written brief, not a feature table.

Last updated

Quick answer

Which headless CMS platform fits an Australian business best: Contentful, Storyblok, Statamic, Payload or Strapi?

High confidenceVerified

There's no single best headless CMS platform. Contentful suits multi-site scale, Storyblok suits visual editing, Statamic suits self-hosted control, and Payload or Strapi suit teams building their own editorial tooling.

Additional Context

Compare all six headless CMS platforms against authoring experience, modelling, preview and workflow, localisation, API fit, hosting model and cost of ownership before shortlisting, rather than picking from a feature table alone.

Sources

Platform selection

Comparing headless CMS platforms against the criteria that matter

Six platforms get shortlisted for most Australian headless CMS projects: Contentful, Storyblok, Statamic, Payload, Strapi and Sanity. Each one answers a different mix of authoring experience, content modelling, preview and workflow, localisation, API fit, hosting model and cost of ownership. The platform that wins a feature comparison on paper is not always the one a marketing team can use day to day, or the one an engineering team can support once budgets tighten.

National Digital works from a written requirements brief before naming a platform, because the trade-offs only show up once real content and real editors are tested against each candidate. That extends to the prior question of whether headless is the right call at all: a decoupled CMS architecture earns its added complexity where content serves more than one front end, such as a website, app and kiosk, or where a WordPress to headless migration is being driven by performance or editorial limits a conventional CMS can't lift. Where content serves one website for one audience, a conventional CMS or e-commerce platform usually costs less to run and is the straightforward call.

Four shortlisted approaches to headless content management

A side-by-side look at four approaches to headless content management, scored against the criteria that actually change outcomes for an editorial team and an engineering team.

Contentful

A mature SaaS headless CMS with strong API tooling, an app marketplace and proven scaling, widely used across multi-brand and multi-market organisations.

Cost:
Indicative mid to high ongoing subscription cost(Timeline depends on the number of sites and languages being migrated)

Pros:

  • Proven at scale for multi-site and multi-language estates, with a broad partner and app ecosystem.
  • Strong content modelling and reference fields that support complex taxonomies without custom code.

Cons:

  • Usage-based pricing on API calls and environments can climb quickly once traffic or content volume grows.

Best For:

Organisations running several sites or brands off one content model, where hosted infrastructure and vendor support are worth paying for.

Recommended

Storyblok

A SaaS headless CMS built around a visual, component-based editor that lets marketing teams preview and arrange page sections without a developer.

Cost:
Indicative low to mid subscription cost, scaling with seats and space usage(Timeline depends on component library size and page count)

Pros:

  • Visual editor gives content teams real-time preview of component layouts, reducing back-and-forth with developers.
  • Component-based modelling maps cleanly onto design systems already used in Next.js or Nuxt front ends.

Cons:

  • Less suited to highly structured, non-visual content such as product catalogues or document-heavy archives.

Best For:

Marketing-led teams publishing frequently changing landing pages and campaigns across multiple front ends.

Conditional

Statamic

A self-hosted, Laravel-based CMS that behaves as headless or traditional, giving full control over hosting, cost and data residency.

Cost:
Indicative licence plus hosting and support cost(Timeline depends on content model complexity and hosting setup)

Pros:

  • Runs on infrastructure the business already controls, avoiding ongoing per-seat or per-call vendor fees.
  • Laravel foundation suits teams with existing PHP skills and fits well where data residency matters.

Cons:

  • Hosting, patching and scaling move from the vendor's job to the business's own operations team.

Best For:

Teams wanting a self-hosted platform with predictable cost and direct control over data location.

Conditional

Payload or Strapi

Open-source, code-first CMS frameworks that developers configure directly in TypeScript or Node.js, trading editorial polish for full control of the stack.

Cost:
Indicative build and hosting cost, with no platform licence fee(Timeline depends on custom tooling and workflow built from scratch)

Pros:

  • No licence fee, with the whole schema, access control and API defined in code under version control.
  • Can be extended or forked freely, so there's no vendor lock-in on the content model itself.

Cons:

  • Editorial experience and workflow tooling are less refined than the established SaaS platforms out of the box.

Best For:

Engineering-led teams that want full ownership of the codebase and are prepared to build editorial workflow themselves.

Conditional

Recommendation

The deciding factor is rarely feature count. It's whether the business wants a vendor's SaaS platform and its ongoing subscription cost, or full control of a self-hosted or code-first stack and the operational responsibility that comes with it.

Platform selection risk

The real cost of picking a headless CMS platform without a brief

Problem

Many headless CMS shortlists are built from feature comparison tables and vendor demos, with no written brief covering authoring workflow, localisation, hosting model or what happens if the platform has to be replaced. The shortlist often gets picked on whichever features show best in a sales demo, not the ones that decide whether a content team can actually work in the system.

Common Pain Points:

  • Feature checklist bias Shortlists built from marketing comparison pages favour the platform with the longest feature list, not the one editors can actually use.
  • No exit plan Content modelled entirely around one vendor's proprietary structure is expensive to move later, whichever platform gets chosen.
  • Workflow assumed, not tested Role-based publishing and approval steps look similar in a demo but behave very differently once a real team configures them.

Business Impact:

Time Wasted: Re-platforming after a wrong pick means redoing content modelling and migration work that the first build was meant to avoid.

Cost Implication: Switching platforms mid-contract adds a second setup cost on top of the first build's sunk cost.

Opportunity Cost: Editorial teams work around a platform that doesn't fit instead of publishing faster, which is the entire point of going headless.

Solution

Test each shortlisted platform against a written brief covering authoring experience, modelling, preview and workflow, localisation, API fit, hosting model, cost of ownership and exit, before any contract is signed.

Our Approach:

  1. 1Write the brief (Early, before vendor conversations begin)

    Document the content model, editorial workflow, localisation needs, integration points and hosting preference before approaching any vendor.

  2. 2Build working prototypes (Runs as a short evaluation phase)

    Stand up a working repository for each shortlisted platform against real content, not a vendor's demo data.

  3. 3Test the editorial workflow (Alongside the prototype phase)

    Have the actual content team publish and approve real pages in each candidate, not just view a sales walkthrough.

  4. 4Decide on hosting and exit (Before contract commitment)

    Confirm who owns the data, where it's hosted, and what migrating away would involve before signing anything.

Expected Outcome: A platform decision the editorial and engineering teams can both live with, with a documented reason for it if the spend is ever questioned.

Key Takeaways

What actually decides a headless CMS platform choice

  • No single platform wins across every criterionCritical

    Contentful suits multi-brand scale, Storyblok suits visual editing, Statamic suits self-hosted control, and Payload or Strapi suit teams building their own editorial tooling.

  • Editorial workflow testing matters more than feature listsCritical

    Role-based publishing, approval steps and version history behave differently once a real content team configures them, not just in a vendor demo.

  • Hosting model changes total cost of ownershipImportant

    SaaS platforms trade ongoing subscription cost for less operational burden; self-hosted and code-first options trade lower licence cost for infrastructure responsibility.

  • A written brief should predate any platform conversationImportant

    Documenting the content model, localisation needs and integration points first stops the shortlist being driven by whichever vendor demos best.

  • Headless isn't always the right callHelpful

    Where content serves one website and one audience, a conventional CMS or e-commerce platform is usually cheaper to run and simpler to support.

Platform choice should follow a written brief on authoring, modelling, hosting and exit, tested against real content and a real editorial team, not a feature comparison table alone.

What implementation reveals

What the comparison misses until the build starts

Feature matrices compare modelling flexibility and API surface area, but two things rarely show up until a build is underway: how an editorial team actually works day to day, and how the chosen platform behaves once content has to reach more than one front end.

National Digital evaluated headless CMS candidates on Statamic, Craft 5 and Payload for a cultural institution against one written requirements brief, because a working build surfaces authoring friction a spec sheet cannot. It is now building the chosen system, Statamic 6 on Laravel. Elsewhere, National Digital consolidated NRMA Parks and Resorts onto one shared Contentful migration, feeding a single Next.js front end from one content model, the kind of multi-site case Contentful's API tooling and app marketplace are built to absorb.

A 2026 peer-reviewed paper on how generative AI disrupts search found that websites that block Google's AI crawler were significantly less likely to be retrieved by Google's AI Overviews, despite the overviews having access to the content (Grossman et al., 2026). Headless builds sometimes gate the entire delivery API behind the same authentication used for staging and preview content, which blocks AI crawlers from the published site along with everything else. It is worth confirming the public API is reachable without a token before launch, not after.

The same scrutiny applies to day-to-day editorial operations. An editorial approval workflow that looks identical across Contentful, Storyblok and Statamic in a demo can diverge sharply once role-based publishing, multi-language review and version history are configured for a real team.

References

  • Grossman, R., Liu, S., Chen, M. K., Smith, M., Borcea, C., & Chen, Y. (2026). How generative AI disrupts search: An empirical study of Google Search, Gemini, and AI Overviews. Proceedings of the 49th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1145/3805712.3809667

Written by , COO

Reviewed by Cameron Young, CEO, on

Next steps

Two ways to get a number.

Get a range now

Seven questions, an instant cost range. No email address, no callback.

Estimate your project

Get a defensible figure

A Product Development Plan is a fixed $3,950 engagement: two working sessions, then the scope, architecture and fixed quote a build is run from — credited in full against the build.

See the Product Development Plan

Get a platform shortlist built around your content, not a vendor's demo

Send through what you're trying to publish and where it needs to reach, and get a shortlist of platforms worth testing against a written brief, plus an honest view on whether headless is the right call at all.

Optional

Headless CMS platform questions worth answering before you shortlist

How do we choose between Contentful and Storyblok?

Contentful suits teams running several sites or brands off one content model, with a broad app ecosystem and strong reference fields for complex taxonomies. Storyblok suits marketing teams publishing frequent campaign pages, because its visual editor lets non-developers preview component layouts directly. The deciding factor is usually how visual the editing experience needs to be against how structured and multi-site the content model already is.

Is Statamic better than Payload for a self-hosted build?

Statamic gives a more complete editorial experience out of the box because it ships an admin interface and workflow tooling on top of Laravel. Payload is a code-first framework: developers get full control of the schema and API, but editorial tooling has to be configured or extended. A content team usually gets there faster with Statamic; an engineering-led team building something unusual often prefers Payload's flexibility.

What's the practical difference between Payload and Strapi?

Both are open-source, code-first CMS frameworks built in Node.js and TypeScript with no platform licence fee. Payload leans toward tighter TypeScript integration and a more opinionated admin UI; Strapi has a larger plugin ecosystem and a longer track record. Evaluating both against the same working build, not their marketing pages, is the only reliable way to tell which fits a specific content model.

Do we need a headless CMS, or would a conventional platform do the job?

If content serves one website for one audience, a conventional CMS or e-commerce platform is usually cheaper to run and easier to support. Headless earns its added complexity when content has to reach multiple front ends, such as a website, app and kiosk, or when a platform's limits are already costing the business time.

Where does Sanity fit against Contentful and Storyblok?

Sanity sits close to Contentful in being API-first and developer-configured, but its real-time collaborative editor and structured content studio appeal to teams wanting more control over the authoring interface than Contentful's fixed admin allows. It's worth shortlisting alongside Contentful and Storyblok where a highly customised editorial interface matters more than an established app marketplace.

In this hub · every guide