hello@krischase.com
Back to Blog
EngineeringCMSContent ManagementHeadless CMSContent-as-Code

CMS Decision Maker: Content-as-Code vs Traditional CMS in the AI Era

With AI coding agents, the cost of CMS abstraction has never been higher. Determine if you need a CMS or if content-as-code is the better path for your team.

6 min read
1,282 words
CMS Decision Maker: Content-as-Code vs Traditional CMS in the AI Era

CMS Decision Maker: Content-as-Code vs Traditional CMS in the AI Era

The CMS decision used to be simple: need content management? Buy a CMS. But the landscape has changed. AI coding agents can write Markdown. Git workflows make content versioning trivial. Developer teams are questioning whether they need CMS abstraction at all.

The reality is more nuanced. Some teams need traditional CMSs. Others should use headless CMSs. And increasingly, teams should use content-as-code (Markdown in Git). The question is which fits your team, workflow, and content needs.

The CMS Decision Maker helps you evaluate your situation and make the right call.

Why the CMS Decision Matters More Now

Traditional CMSs add abstraction layers. They require APIs, admin interfaces, preview systems, and content models. That abstraction was valuable when non-technical teams couldn't edit code. But AI coding agents change the equation.

If developers can use AI to edit Markdown files directly, why add CMS abstraction? If Git provides versioning, workflows, and collaboration, why add CMS workflows? If static site generators handle content, why add a CMS backend?

The answer depends on who updates content, how often, what complexity you need, and whether your team benefits from CMS abstraction.

The Three Options

Modern teams have three viable paths:

Content-as-Code (No CMS)

Content lives in your Git repository as Markdown files. Developers or AI agents edit files directly. Git provides versioning, workflows, and collaboration. Static site generators build the site.

When It Makes Sense:

  • Developers or AI agents update content
  • Content updates are infrequent or predictable
  • Your team is comfortable with Git workflows
  • Content is relatively simple (text, images, basic structure)
  • You want maximum control and minimal abstraction
  • Budget is constrained
  • You're using static site generators (Next.js, Gatsby, Hugo)

Benefits:

  • No CMS costs
  • Full control over content structure
  • Git provides versioning and workflows
  • No API dependencies
  • Faster builds (no CMS API calls)
  • Content and code live together

Limitations:

  • Non-technical teams can't easily update content
  • No built-in preview system
  • More complex i18n workflows
  • Requires developer involvement for content changes

Headless CMS

Content lives in a CMS backend. Your site consumes content via API. Non-technical teams can update content. Developers control presentation.

When It Makes Sense:

  • Non-technical teams update content frequently
  • Content complexity is moderate (structured content, relationships)
  • You need preview capabilities
  • Multiple channels consume the same content (web, mobile, etc.)
  • You want content management without presentation coupling
  • Your team has frontend expertise but needs content editing

Benefits:

  • Non-technical teams can update content
  • Preview systems available
  • Structured content models
  • Multi-channel content delivery
  • Separation of content and presentation

Limitations:

  • CMS costs ($100-$500+/month typically)
  • API dependency (slower builds, potential downtime)
  • Vendor lock-in risk
  • More complex architecture
  • Still requires developer involvement for schema changes

Traditional CMS

Full-stack CMS with database, admin interface, themes, and plugins. Content and presentation are coupled.

When It Makes Sense:

  • Non-technical teams own content completely
  • High content complexity (rich media, complex relationships)
  • You need extensive i18n support
  • Content updates are frequent and unpredictable
  • You want minimal developer involvement
  • You're building content-heavy sites (blogs, marketing sites)

Benefits:

  • Complete non-technical control
  • Rich media management
  • Extensive plugin ecosystems
  • Built-in preview and workflows
  • Proven for content-heavy sites

Limitations:

  • Highest cost and complexity
  • Vendor lock-in
  • Slower performance typically
  • Less flexibility in presentation
  • More maintenance burden

The CMS Decision Maker evaluates your team capabilities, content update frequency, content complexity, and technical requirements to recommend the right path.

Key Decision Factors

The framework evaluates several critical factors:

Who Updates Content?

Developers or AI agents: Content-as-code likely fits Non-technical teams: Headless or traditional CMS needed Mixed team: Headless CMS often best

The tool assesses who actually updates content and how technical they are.

Content Update Frequency

Infrequent (monthly or less): Content-as-code works fine Moderate (weekly): Headless CMS often best Frequent (daily or more): Traditional or headless CMS needed

Update frequency determines whether CMS workflows justify the abstraction cost.

Content Complexity

Simple (text, images, basic structure): Content-as-code sufficient Moderate (structured content, relationships): Headless CMS often best Complex (rich media, complex relationships, i18n): Traditional CMS may be needed

Complexity determines whether you need CMS features or if Markdown is enough.

Team Capabilities

Strong developer team: Content-as-code viable Mixed technical/non-technical: Headless CMS often best Primarily non-technical: Traditional CMS may be needed

Team capabilities determine what workflows are feasible.

Budget Constraints

Limited budget: Content-as-code (free) Moderate budget: Headless CMS ($100-$500/month) Healthy budget: Traditional CMS ($500-$2000+/month)

Budget affects what options are viable, but needs should drive the decision.

Technical Requirements

Static site generation: Content-as-code or headless CMS Multi-channel delivery: Headless CMS Complex i18n: Traditional or headless CMS Preview requirements: Headless or traditional CMS

The tool synthesizes these factors into a recommendation.

The AI Coding Agent Factor

AI coding agents change the CMS equation. If developers can use AI to edit Markdown files, the barrier to content-as-code is lower. Non-technical teams might even use AI-assisted editing.

This doesn't eliminate CMSs, but it shifts when they make sense:

  • If AI can handle content updates, CMS abstraction is less valuable
  • If non-technical teams need direct editing, CMSs still make sense
  • If content complexity is high, CMS features still matter

The tool considers whether AI coding agents affect your team's capabilities.

Real-World Examples

I've used this framework to help teams make the right decision:

Developer-Focused SaaS: 5-person dev team, marketing site, infrequent updates. Recommendation: Content-as-code. They use Markdown in Git, developers update content with AI assistance, saved $500/month on CMS costs.

E-commerce Platform: Marketing team updates content daily, needs preview, multi-channel delivery. Recommendation: Headless CMS. They use Contentful, marketing team updates content independently, developers control presentation.

Content-Heavy Blog: Editorial team, rich media, complex i18n, frequent updates. Recommendation: Traditional CMS. They use WordPress, editorial team has full control, minimal developer involvement needed.

B2B SaaS: Mixed team, moderate content complexity, weekly updates, needs preview. Recommendation: Headless CMS. They use Sanity, marketing updates content, developers control frontend.

In each case, the recommendation matched actual content management needs.

Common Mistakes

Teams make predictable mistakes:

Using CMS When Content-as-Code Would Work: Paying for CMS abstraction when developers could edit Markdown directly

Using Content-as-Code When CMS Needed: Forcing non-technical teams to use Git when CMS would be better

Choosing Traditional When Headless Would Work: Over-abstracting when headless CMS provides the needed separation

Ignoring Team Capabilities: Choosing based on features instead of who actually updates content

Ignoring Budget: Choosing expensive CMS when simpler option would work

The tool helps avoid these mistakes by evaluating needs objectively.

Migration Considerations

If you're using the wrong approach, consider migration:

CMS → Content-as-Code: Export content to Markdown, set up Git workflows, train team

Content-as-Code → CMS: Set up CMS, migrate content, train non-technical teams

Traditional → Headless: Decouple content from presentation, set up headless CMS, migrate content

Migration is possible but has cost. The tool helps you choose right the first time.

Final Thought

The CMS decision isn't just about features—it's about who updates content, how often, and what workflows fit your team. AI coding agents have changed the equation, but CMSs still have their place.

Use the CMS Decision Maker to evaluate your specific situation. Get a recommendation based on your team, content needs, and technical requirements.

Choosing the right content management approach saves costs, improves workflows, and ensures content stays maintainable as your team grows. Get it right, and content updates are smooth. Get it wrong, and you're paying for abstraction you don't need, or forcing teams into workflows that don't fit.

The framework helps you make the right call.

Kris Chase

@chasebadkids
Share:
TwitterLinkedIn
Executive Tools