B2BFYI #11: Choosing the right CMS

Welcome! 👋 The B2BFYI newsletter is for B2B marketers looking for a competitive edge. Covering brand, marketing + tech, B2BFYI serves as a guide to building a more effective marketing strategy.

B2BFYI is written by industry veterans Chris Bennett (Strategy), Geoff Bretherick (Creative) and Philip Bennison (Tech), and published weekly. You can sign up here to get issues straight to your inbox.

Except, despite what your IT team might tell you, it’s not. A CMS should make your life as a marketer easier. The technology is less important than the capability it gives you. A CMS is just a glorified method for updating your website so you don’t have to pay your agency for every typo that needs fixing.

Imagine this. Your rebrand is going beautifully. The strategy's locked in (and actually signed off), the identity's looking great, and the new messaging actually makes sense for once.

Then someone asks: "What about the CMS?"

And suddenly you're in a room full of developers, IT managers, and that one person from operations who has opinions about server infrastructure, trying to decode the difference between headless, open-source, SaaS, and whatever the hell Strapi is.

In my 16 years of marketing, I’ve been client-side and agency-side. I've watched more rebrand projects get derailed by CMS decisions than I care to admit. Not because the technology is bad, but because nobody explains the actual trade-offs in language that normal humans can understand.

Ultimately, there's no "best" CMS. There's only the right one for your specific situation, your team's capabilities, your budget, and your tolerance for technical debt. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

This guide is for marketing leaders who need to make an informed decision without needing a computer science degree. I'll explain what actually matters, what the jargon really means, and the honest pros and cons of each major platform.

No vendor bullsh*t, no theoretical frameworks. Just a dose of technical reality from someone who's helped B2B companies through this mess more times than I'd like to count.

Before we get into platforms, let's talk about what you're actually trying to achieve. Because if you can't articulate your requirements clearly, you'll end up with whatever the loudest voice in the room prefers, or you’ll just go with whatever your agency advises—sometimes they know what they are doing, others they’re clueless.

Content management (obviously)

You need to publish pages, blog posts, case studies, and resources without filing a ticket (or an invoice) with IT or your agency every single time. Your marketing team should be able to create, edit, and publish content without needing a developer to hold their hand.

Sounds basic, but you'd be shocked how many CMSs make this unnecessarily complicated.

Performance and SEO

Your new website needs to load fast. Search engines care about page speed. Your prospects care about page speed. Your CEO definitely cares when they test the site on their phone and it takes five seconds to load.

You also need proper SEO capabilities: meta descriptions, clean URLs, schema markup, canonical tags, all that good stuff. Some platforms handle this brilliantly out of the box. Others require plugins or expensive custom development.

Integration with your marketing stack

Your CMS doesn't exist in isolation. It needs to play nicely with your CRM (probably Salesforce or HubSpot, hopefully not an Excel sheet from 2003), your marketing automation platform, your analytics tools, your chat widget, and whatever else you've got bolted together.

Some CMSs make integrations trivial. Others require custom development for every single connection. This is where costs tend to spiral.

Security and reliability

Your website will get attacked. Not because you're special, but because automated bots are constantly probing for vulnerabilities.

You need a platform that takes security seriously. This means regular patches, secure hosting, proper backup systems. Because explaining to your CEO why the website's been defaced or is serving malware is not a conversation you want to have (trust me, been there).

Flexibility for the future

Your requirements will change. You'll want to add new sections, integrate new tools, maybe launch a customer portal or resource centre. Sky’s the limit.

A good CMS gives you room to grow without requiring a complete rebuild every two years. A bad one locks you into rigid templates and makes every change feel like pulling teeth.

Realistic costs

This isn't just the license fee. It's hosting, plugins, development time, migration, training, support, and maintenance. Some platforms look cheap until you add everything up. Others are expensive upfront but save you money long-term.

Work out your total cost of ownership over three years, not just year one. Budget accordingly.

Support and documentation

When something breaks at 4pm on a Friday (and it will), can you fix it? Is there decent documentation? An active community? Responsive support?

This matters more than you think. I've seen marketing teams lose entire days trying to solve problems that should take 20 minutes because the platform's documentation is sparse and was last updated in 2012.

Let's decode some jargon. This is genuinely important for understanding your options and costs.

Open-source CMS

Think WordPress, Drupal, Umbraco, Craft CMS. The software itself is free. You can download it, modify it, and use it however you want.

But "free" is misleading.

You need somewhere to host it (servers cost money). You need someone to install it, configure it, maintain it, and update it. You need to manage security patches. You need backups. You probably need a developer on retainer for when things go wrong. Either your own IT team will handle this, or your agency partner will have it covered under a hosting agreement (usually yearly).

The software is free. Everything around it isn't.

The upside? Total control. You own your website completely. You can customise anything. You're not locked into a vendor's pricing or feature roadmap. If your CMS provider goes bust or gets acquired, your site keeps running.

The downside? It's your responsibility. If the server goes down at 2am, that's your problem. If there's a security vulnerability, you need to patch it. If you want a new feature, you need to build it or find a plugin.

This works brilliantly if you've got technical resources. It's a nightmare if you don't.

SaaS CMS

Think Webflow, Squarespace, Wix, HubSpot CMS. You pay a monthly or annual subscription. They host it, maintain it, update it, and handle all the security.

You don't own the platform, you're just renting it. But you also don't have to worry about servers, patches, or infrastructure.

The upside is simplicity. Someone else handles the technical heavy lifting. Updates happen automatically. Support is usually pretty good (mileage may vary across subscription tiers). You pay a predictable monthly fee and crack on with marketing.

The downside is less flexibility. You're limited to what the platform offers. If they increase prices, you've got limited negotiating power. If they discontinue a feature you rely on, tough luck. And if you want to migrate away, it's often a pain in the ass. Need something custom? No chance.

This works brilliantly if you want simplicity and don't need extensive customisation. It's limiting if you've got complex requirements or want total control.

Which model makes sense for you?

Ask yourself these questions:

If you've got strong technical capabilities and complex needs, then open-source probably makes sense.

If you want to focus on marketing rather than infrastructure, then SaaS could be an option.

Neither is wrong. They're just different trade-offs. I will say that after doing this for 16 years over 100+ B2B clients, SaaS is usually not the best route. Do with that what you will!

Now for the other bit of jargon that gets thrown around.

Traditional CMS

This is the classic approach. Your CMS manages your content and handles how it's displayed on your website. The back-end (where you edit) and the front-end (what visitors see) are tightly integrated.

WordPress is good example of a traditional CMS (with some poking you can get it to run headless too). You edit content in the admin panel, choose a theme, and it generates your website. Simple.

With everything in one place, it’s easier to set up and manage. What you see is pretty close to what you get. Most marketing teams can handle this without constant developer support.

The downside? You're limited to web experiences. If you want to publish the same content to a mobile app, an IoT device (do people even use these?), or some future channel that doesn't exist yet, you're rebuilding from scratch.

Headless CMS

Here, the CMS just manages content. It doesn't care how or where it's displayed. The content lives in the back-end, and you use APIs to pull it into whatever front-end you want. This could be a website, mobile app, digital signage, whatever.

Strapi, Contentful, and Sanity are pure headless systems. But platforms like WordPress can also work in a headless way.

Upside is maximum flexibility. Publish once, distribute everywhere. Your developers have complete control over the front-end experience. Future-proof for whatever channels emerge.

The downside is it’s inherently more complex. Requires proper technical resources + training. Marketing teams can't just "preview" changes easily as there's a disconnect between editing and seeing the result. Setup and maintenance costs are higher.

Do you actually need headless?

To be honest, most mid-market B2B companies don't.

If you're just running a corporate website with a blog, case studies, and resource centre, traditional is probably fine. It's simpler, cheaper, and easier to manage.

Headless makes sense if:

Don't go headless because it sounds cool or because your agency recommends it without clear business justification. The added complexity and cost need to deliver actual value.

Let's get into specific platforms. I'll be clear here. These are generalisations based on typical use cases + my professional experience from both sides of the desk. Your mileage may vary depending on setup, hosting, and how you use them.

The reality: Powers about 40% of the web. It's the default choice for good reason. It has a massive ecosystem, endless plugins and most developers know it well.

Pros:
✔️ Huge plugin library for basically any functionality you can imagine
✔️ Massive community means solutions to problems are well-documented
✔️ Relatively easy for non-technical users to manage content
✔️ Can scale from simple to complex with the right setup
✔️ Cheap to get started, plenty of developers available
✔️ Easily added eCommerce + multilingual functionality
✔️ Most marketers are familiar with using it

Cons:
❌ Security vulnerabilities if not properly maintained
❌ Plugin bloat can slow everything down
❌ Quality varies wildly, some plugins are brilliant, others are garbage
❌ Can feel clunky for complex, custom functionality
❌ Requires proper hosting and maintenance to perform well
❌ Many of the best plugins are paid with limited free functionality
❌ Interface feels like something from 2012 (because it is)

The reality: The enterprise open-source option. More robust and secure than WordPress, but requires proper technical expertise + is not a cheap option.

Pros:
✔️ Extremely flexible and powerful for complex requirements
✔️ Better security track record than WordPress
✔️ Excellent for large-scale, multi-site setups
✔️ Strong permission and workflow systems
✔️ Great for organisations with complex content structures

Cons:
❌ Steep learning curve, Not friendly for non-technical users
❌ Poor editing experience
❌ Requires specialist developers (who aren't cheap)
❌ More expensive to build and maintain
❌ Updates can be complex and time-consuming
❌ Overkill for most mid-market B2B websites
❌ Constant fear of having to spend £££ to upgrade to the next version

The reality: Built on Microsoft .NET, so particularly common in organisations already in the Microsoft ecosystem. Similar to Kentico in that it’s usually either overkill or underbaked for what you need. Not a good fit in many cases.

Pros:
✔️ Clean, intuitive interface that marketers actually like using
✔️ Flexible and customisable without being overwhelming
✔️ Strong developer community in certain regions
✔️ Good balance of power and usability
✔️ Works well with Microsoft Azure for hosting

Cons:
❌ Smaller ecosystem than WordPress or Drupal
❌ Requires .NET developers (more niche than PHP)
❌ Can be expensive depending on hosting and support needs
❌ Less plugin availability than major platforms
❌ Regional availability of skilled developers varies

The reality: The designer's choice. Visual, powerful, and increasingly popular for marketing sites. SaaS model.

Pros:
✔️ Design-focused websites without custom code
✔️ Marketing teams can manage content relatively easily
✔️ Fast, well-optimised sites out of the box
✔️ Great for companies who prioritise design and brand
✔️ All-in-one platform: hosting, CMS, and builder included

Cons:
❌ Can get expensive as you add functionality and team members
❌ Limited compared to open-source platforms for complex requirements
❌ Edge cases are a nightmare to deal with
❌ Staging (test) environment setup is really bad
❌ Learning curve for the visual builder
❌ Migration off Webflow is painful

The reality: Laravel-based flat-file CMS that's gained traction for its simplicity and developer experience.

Pros:
✔️ Clean, modern interface
✔️ Flat-file architecture means fast, simple deployments
✔️ Great developer experience for PHP/Laravel developers
✔️ Flexible content structures
✔️ Seriously fast
✔️ No database to manage (for basic setups)

Cons:
❌ Smaller ecosystem than major platforms
❌ Requires Laravel developers (more niche)
❌ Less suitable for very large, complex sites
❌ Fewer integrations and plugins available
❌ Relatively unknown, which can create dependency on specific developers

The reality: Popular open-source headless CMS. JavaScript-based, designed for developers building custom front-ends.

Pros:
✔️ Extremely flexible for custom applications
✔️ Great API-first approach
✔️ Active development and growing community
✔️ Self-hosted or cloud options
✔️ Modern developer experience

Cons:
❌ Requires strong technical capabilities
❌ Marketing teams can't preview content easily
❌ More complex to set up and maintain
❌ Younger platform with evolving best practices
❌ Needs separate front-end development

The reality: The all-in-one website builder. Simple, templated, designed for small businesses.

Pros:
✔️ Incredibly easy to use
✔️ Beautiful templates out of the box
✔️ All-in-one (hosting, domain, email)
✔️ Predictable monthly cost
✔️ Great for getting something up quickly

Cons:
❌ Limited customisation and flexibility
❌ Doesn't scale well for complex B2B needs
❌ Basic SEO capabilities
❌ Limited integration options
❌ Feels generic for professional B2B brands

The reality: Similar to Squarespace but even more consumer-focused. Drag-and-drop simplicity.

Pros:
✔️ Extremely easy for non-technical users
✔️ Huge template library
✔️ Affordable
✔️ All-in-one solution
✔️ Quick to launch

Cons:
❌ Looks and feels cheap for B2B brands
❌ Performance and SEO limitations
❌ Very limited customisation
❌ Not taken seriously (at all) by professional buyers
❌ Poor developer experience

The reality: Enterprise-grade digital experience platform. Extremely powerful, extremely expensive. Great for when you have more budget than sense.

Pros:
✔️ Sophisticated personalisation and marketing automation
✔️ Excellent for large-scale, multi-site deployments
✔️ Robust security and compliance features
✔️ Powerful analytics and testing capabilities
✔️ Built for enterprise marketing teams

Cons:
❌ Expensive as f*ck (six figures minimum PER YEAR)
❌ Requires dedicated technical resources and specialists
❌ Massive overkill for mid-market companies
❌ Long implementation timelines
❌Questionable support team
❌Even more questionable code base (read: lots of years-old bugs)
❌ Complex licensing and ongoing costs

The reality: Another .NET enterprise CMS, positioned as a more affordable alternative to Sitecore. Too basic for enterprise, too complex for everyone else. Would avoid.

Pros:
✔️ Comprehensive features for marketing teams
✔️ Good balance of power + usability
✔️ Strong in the .NET ecosystem
✔️ Decent personalisation capabilities
✔️ Cloud or on-premise options

Cons:
❌ Still expensive for most mid-market companies
❌ Requires .NET developers (harder to find + expensive)
❌ Smaller community than major platforms
❌ Can be complex to implement properly
❌ Potentially more than you need

The reality: PHP-based CMS that a few developers enjoy for its flexibility and clean code.

Pros:
✔️ Extremely flexible content structures
✔️ Decent interface
✔️ Solid developer experience
✔️ Powerful without being bloated
✔️ Helpful community

Cons:
❌ Smaller ecosystem than WordPress
❌ Requires Craft-specific expertise
❌ Paid licensing (though reasonable)
❌ Fewer plugins available
❌ Less common, so finding developers can be harder

The reality: CMS built into HubSpot's marketing platform. Makes sense if you're already all-in on HubSpot, but it’s pretty naff.

Pros:
✔️ Seamless integration with HubSpot CRM and marketing tools
✔️ Built-in analytics and personalisation
✔️ Drag-and-drop editing for marketers
✔️ All-in-one platform for marketing
✔️ Good support and training resources

Cons:
❌ Expensive, especially as you scale
❌ Often looks crap
❌ Limited flexibility compared to open-source options
❌ Locked into HubSpot ecosystem
❌ Developer experience is mediocre
❌ Migration off HubSpot is painful

The reality: Some agencies offer their own custom-built CMS as part of website projects. Why? Because they can lock you in and charge you more. Glorified scam if you ask me. Avoid like it was ebola.

Pros:
✔️ Potentially tailored to your exact needs (though rarely)
✔️ Agency knows the system inside-out
✔️ Can be cost-effective if bundled with design/development

Cons:
❌ Locked into that specific agency forever
❌ Limited or no community support
❌ If the agency goes bust or you fall out, you're screwed
❌ Usually inferior to established platforms
❌ Difficult to find other developers who know the system

Ah, so we’ve arrived at the moment of decision. Let’s work it through.

Start with honest answers to these questions:

What's your technical capability?
If you've got a strong internal team or a reliable development agency, open-source platforms like WordPress, Craft, or Umbraco give you maximum flexibility.

If you're a lean marketing team without technical support, SaaS platforms like Webflow or HubSpot (if you're in their ecosystem) will save you headaches.

What's your actual budget?
Include everything: licensing, hosting, development, ongoing maintenance, support, training. Work out three-year total cost of ownership.

Some platforms are cheap upfront but expensive long-term. Others are the opposite.

How complex are your requirements?
Simple corporate website with blog and resources? WordPress or Webflow will do the job brilliantly.

Multi-site, multi-region, complex workflows and integrations? You need something more robust like Drupal, Umbraco, or Kentico.

How important is design flexibility?
If your rebrand demands pixel-perfect implementation and design is a core differentiator, Webflow or Craft CMS excel here.

If design is important but not the primary focus, WordPress with a good theme and developer will work fine.

What's your timeline?
Need something up quickly? SaaS platforms like Webflow or Squarespace can launch in weeks.

Complex custom build on Drupal or Sitecore? You're looking at months.

What's your risk tolerance?
Comfortable managing technical infrastructure and updates? Open-source gives you control.

Want someone else to handle the technical stuff? SaaS removes that risk (but creates vendor dependency).

I’ve watched 100+ B2B companies navigate CMS decisions.

There's no perfect choice. Every platform involves juggling trade-offs. The key is understanding your priorities and constraints, then choosing the option that best fits.

For most mid-market B2B companies doing a rebrand, WordPress will serve you brilliantly. It’s proven, reliable, and strikes a good balance between capability and complexity. I’ve also completed a bunch of really successful projects in the last 12 months using Statamic. It feels like if WordPress had actually updated itself since 2012. Refreshing, fast and sans the bloated framework.

If you're already invested in HubSpot and your marketing-tech stack is built around it, I probably would still just use it as a CRM. It’s a low-effort CMS for mid-market B2B.

If you're in the Microsoft ecosystem with .NET developers, Umbraco is worth serious consideration. I think it’s a better version of Kentico.

Avoid Drupal and Sitecore unless you genuinely need enterprise-grade complexity (most mid-market companies don't). Avoid Squarespace and Wix unless you're a fish and chip shop in Clacton. And for the love of all this is holy, avoid proprietary agency-owned solutions.

The worst CMS decision is choosing based on incomplete information, vendor pressure, or what sounds impressive in meetings. Avoid all that.

Do your homework. Talk to companies similar to yours. Get honest assessments from developers who aren't trying to sell you something. And remember, the CMS is just a tool. What matters is the strategy, content, and experience you build with it.

Your rebrand deserves a platform that supports it properly without becoming an anchor dragging you back 5 years.

-chris