Today, I have a real treat for you: an in-depth comparison between Optimizely's new Headless SaaS CMS and Sitecore's XM Cloud product. This is one of the biggest perks of working at a large partner—exclusive access to the latest products. With extensive experience in Headless SaaS CMS products ([Sanity.io](http://sanity.io/), Storyblok, Contentful, XM Cloud, Content Hub One) and significant hands-on time with XM Cloud, I'm excited to compare these two market contenders.

This isn't a deep dive into Optimizely's new SaaS CMS; however, since I have access, I'll likely create more content on this topic in the future. It's important to note that unlike Sitecore, which has been on the market for several years, Optimizely's offering was recently released. This is crucial to keep in mind, as it will influence our final comparison today.

## An Overview

Before we dive into our comparison between these two SaaS CMS platforms, let's clarify what a SaaS-based Enterprise CMS is and explore more about these two companies and their products.

A SaaS-based Enterprise CMS is a cloud-hosted content management system that offers scalability, flexibility, and reduced maintenance for large organizations. These platforms provide robust content creation, management, and delivery capabilities without the need for on-premises infrastructure. Now, let's delve into Optimizely and Sitecore, two major players in this space.

Both Optimizely and Sitecore's SaaS CMS offerings embrace a more modern architectural approach, departing from the monolithic structure where all systems were tightly coupled. The most common grievance I've heard from developers on both platforms is the inability to extend them—but I argue that's precisely the point. You can't extend these platforms using traditional methods from non-SaaS tools, and that's by design. Modifying the platforms would compromise the SaaS model, necessitating a complete rethink of architecture. The new paradigm focuses on integrating external systems with these headless tools, rather than directly altering the platforms themselves.

The traditional approach involved directly modifying the existing platform. In contrast, the modern approach focuses on extending functionality through external options—which we'll discuss shortly—and building around the product using hooks and APIs.

Now that we have a better understanding of how these products compare to each other and fit into the existing Headless SaaS CMS ecosystem, let's evaluate various aspects to determine which of these two products excels in each area. Let's dive in.

## Ability to Learn

This category assesses how easy or difficult it is for developers, marketers, and end users to navigate and utilize the product. It considers both newcomers to the platform and existing users who may have experience with the company's on-premises offerings.

From Optimizely's perspective, their new SaaS platform introduces several features not present in the on-premises version. For instance, `Experiences`—which I initially mistook for a competitor to Sitecore XM Cloud's personalization capabilities—actually adds more presentation-like information to your page and enables the `Visual Builder`, another new feature in this SaaS product. I must admit, the `Experiences` and `Visual Builder` feel somewhat disconnected. The requirement to change a Page to an Experience to enable the Visual Builder, rather than having it available for all pages, seems a bit confusing. For a new user, aside from this quirk, the platform is relatively easy to grasp. In contrast to XM Cloud, which I'll discuss shortly, this product more closely resembles a traditional SaaS and Headless CMS.

Sitecore has always presented a steep learning curve for newcomers to the content management space. Users face a barrage of terminology, even for simple tasks. Take, for example, SXA (Sitecore Experience Accelerator) and its newer iteration, "headless SXA"—a term that, in my view, doesn't quite fit, given that it and the Component Builder are now the sole building methods in XM Cloud. Beyond grasping product concepts and new XM Cloud apps, developers must also wrestle with additional terms like JSS (JavaScript Services) when implementing Sitecore solutions.

This steep learning curve is further complicated by the existence of "right" and "wrong" ways to implement a Sitecore solution. Even seasoned Sitecore developers face new challenges with XM Cloud. They must master the Component Builder, grasp the nuances between headless SXA and traditional SXA, and adapt to feature changes that differ from the on-premises XM and XP versions.

Furthermore, implementing the "head" (front-end) of XM Cloud demands additional learning. In contrast to Optimizely, which offers a .NET Core example for its SaaS product implementation, Sitecore solely recommends Next.js for the host application. While it's challenging to determine if Optimizely's .NET Core version is feature-complete, it's essential to recognize these substantial learning obstacles in the Sitecore XM Cloud ecosystem.

**Winner**: Optimizely SaaS CMS

## Features

Before comparing the features and capabilities of these two offerings, it's important to note that Sitecore's product has been on the market longer than Optimizely's SaaS offering. This extended presence gives Sitecore the advantage of having more time to develop and refine its capabilities.

As previously mentioned, Optimizely's new SaaS CMS reminds me more of a traditional headless CMS compared to XM Cloud. This is because it lacks many capabilities you'd find in XM Cloud. I'm sure Optimizely, now that it has a SaaS CMS product, will eagerly embark on a journey of rolling out new features. However, one additional drawback is that this product has fewer features than XM Cloud had in its early days.

XM Cloud, on the other hand, is packed with features. As I mentioned, this is largely due to user demand and XM Cloud's continuous addition of new capabilities since its launch. I expect Optimizely will follow a similar trajectory. Let's take a moment to explore some of the capabilities that exist in XM Cloud but are currently absent from Optimizely's SaaS CMS.

### Forms

Sitecore XM Cloud frequently received requests for a forms feature in the year following its release. Without it, customers migrating from XP or XM, who were accustomed to these capabilities, would have had to use other providers. Sitecore has now delivered, offering Forms as a SaaS option with ongoing improvements. Since its initial release, which had numerous issues, they've enhanced the product's stability and added new features like conditional fields. Unfortunately, Optimizely doesn't offer a comparable option in their SaaS CMS. While a forms engine may exist somewhere in their product lineup, it's not available in the Optimizely SaaS CMS without additional licensing costs.

### Personalization

Sitecore XM Cloud offered basic personalization capabilities out of the box from its launch, without requiring additional licensing. This is a compelling reason to choose XM Cloud, as many customers are just beginning their personalization journey. The platform provides an excellent opportunity for users to start personalizing content without investing in full-fledged personalization tools. Additionally, A/B testing (experimentation) is on the horizon. XM Cloud now also features edge-side personalization for scenarios where decisions can be made at the edge. Optimizely has significant ground to cover to match these capabilities.

The only downside to this is that the added benefit of personalization likely increases the cost of XM Cloud. Some customers may not want this additional feature, either because they don't plan to use it or they're already using another personalization solution. This highlights a potential drawback of XM Cloud: it might be too expensive for some, partly because it's trying to do too much. While I won't delve into pricing details (as I'm not certain how these products compare), it's an important consideration when choosing between these platforms. Do you want a content management system that excels at its core function, allowing you to add forms or personalization engines as needed? Or do you prefer a solution with all these capabilities built-in, potentially at a higher price point?

### Analytics

Analytics complements Personalization by leveraging Sitecore Personalize (CDP) capabilities behind the scenes. To my knowledge, Optimizely lacks a comparable feature. While this functionality is useful, I believe there are superior options available in the market, such as Google Analytics. Collecting this data can be beneficial if you plan to purchase Personalize in the future. However, I must admit that this is another instance where Sitecore may be adding capabilities that increase costs without delivering substantial value to their customers. Nonetheless, Sitecore offers this capability while Optimizely does not.

### Components

I won't delve too deeply into this topic. While XM Cloud's `Components` feature doesn't have a direct counterpart in Optimizely, it feels somewhat underdeveloped. It now competes with SXA components, which remain the recommended approach for development teams. It's an intriguing concept, but perhaps it was released prematurely. Nevertheless, having additional options is always beneficial.

### A Better Visual Builder

Although some may argue that Sitecore XM Cloud's visual builder (called Pages) isn't as feature-rich as the older Experience Editor, it's definitely superior to Optimizely's editor in my opinion. The main issue I have with Optimizely's editor is that you must configure it for pages, which likely means some marketers won't fully understand the steps to set it up. In contrast, Pages works seamlessly with any site you've set up in XM Cloud. This ease of use makes it superior, in my view. It feels like Optimizely hastily added this new capability, whereas XM Cloud built it as an integral feature from the ground up.

**Winner**: Sitecore XM Cloud

## Identity / Portal

Currently, when you log into the Optimizely SaaS CMS portal, it only contains the CMS. This contrasts with XM Cloud, which allows you to access and use SSO with their other SaaS composable options. Both products offer integration with external Identity providers (such as Azure or Okta), so they're equal in this respect. Neither platform provides a way to add apps to their portals—a feature that would be very useful. Sitecore XM Cloud gains an edge here because more of their SaaS composable products are now available in the Cloud Portal, creating a more unified interface.

**Winner**: Sitecore XM Cloud

## Extensibility

At first glance, XM Cloud appears to have an advantage with its deploy app. However, a closer look reveals that Sitecore actually discourages deploying .NET code customizations to the CMS. This approach aligns with SaaS best practices, as allowing direct platform modifications by customers or partners can be risky. Given the frequent upgrades inherent to SaaS products, such customizations could cause problems. Instead, SaaS architecture typically favors platform extension over modification. Interestingly, neither Optimizely SaaS CMS nor Sitecore XM Cloud currently provides a clear method for extending their platforms.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if either platform provides clearer direction for extensibility in the future. For example, customers might want to create custom fields or launchpad apps—will either platform offer a way to do this? Alternatively, they may never provide these capabilities, leaving developers to use various APIs for creating external integrations and applications that work across different systems. At this point, both platforms could use more guidance for the community. While Sitecore has offered some direction, neither has clearly outlined how to achieve the customizations that customers were accustomed to with their non-SaaS products. This may be intentional, suggesting that customers seeking a highly customizable platform might need to stick with on-premises options.

**Winner**: Tie

## Developer Experience + Developer Choice

Developer choice is crucial in headless architecture. Both CMSs offer a hosted platform delivering content via API (REST or GraphQL), so it's vital for developers to have ample support for various frameworks or languages they might use to build their `head` application.

With the release of Optimizely’s SaaS CMS, example repositories were made available—though I haven't used them yet. They support a wide range of options, including .NET Core, Next.js, React, and Gatsby. For a complete list, check out the repository here: [https://github.com/episerver/content-graph-js-sdk/tree/main/samples](https://github.com/episerver/content-graph-js-sdk/tree/main/samples). This stands in stark contrast to Sitecore, which essentially provides just one fully functional example for XM Cloud. Although JSS (the SDK for Sitecore’s APIs) offers more options, many features like Multisite and Personalization in XM Cloud only work with Next.js. This is disappointing for a headless CMS, which by nature should offer framework choices. You could theoretically use something other than Next.js, but you’d need to build those XM Cloud features yourself. This is especially frustrating given that Optimizely’s offering is new, while XM Cloud has been around for years. I've heard talk of expanding support for other frameworks and languages, but as of now, that's not possible, making the winner in this category clear.

**Winner**: Optimizely SaaS CMS

## Stability + Maturity

This is an easy win for Sitecore XM Cloud. As with any new product in its infancy, Optimizely's SaaS CMS must learn to improve processes for running a SaaS business. It's different from running an on-premises option, as any issues are magnified when they arise, with immediate impacts. Gone are the days when you could build and release a product, then wait several months to receive feedback from customers beginning to build on the platform.

**Winner**: Sitecore XM Cloud

## The Ultimate Winner

I don't believe there are clear winners in this case, except perhaps the customers who now have another option for modern, enterprise-grade infrastructure. However, it's important to note that a SaaS enterprise CMS isn't always the right choice for every customer. When selecting a platform, carefully consider whether SaaS is the best fit for your business. While SaaS offers significant benefits that warrant thorough consideration, it does limit some direct customization options. For developers who've worked with these platforms over the past decade, the new Composable SaaS products demand a fundamental shift in approach. Building for these platforms now requires a focus on API utilization rather than direct customizations.

In summary, these products are evenly matched, with Sitecore XM Cloud having a slight advantage due to its longer time on the market. However, it's important to note that Optimizely's offering will likely mature rapidly, thanks to the continuous innovation and improvement inherent in SaaS platforms. When choosing between these products, your decision will ultimately depend on the specific features you're looking for. It's also crucial to recognize that both products exist within larger ecosystems. The choice isn't just about selecting the best CMS, but about finding the right combination of products that work well together to meet your needs.

I hope you've enjoyed this comparison! Stay tuned for more content on Optimizely and other SaaS CMS platforms coming soon to my channel.

Optimizely

Optimizely SaaS CMS vs Sitecore XM Cloud