Website & CMS platforms

Sanity vs Contentful

Updated September 2026

Sanity if developers own the site: the schema lives in your repository, the editor is yours to shape, and the free plan carries twenty seats. Contentful if one content set has to serve several markets and non-developers must model it themselves, which is what justifies the jump to $300 a month.

Both tools are assessed against the same criteria, scored before any commercial conversation. How we rank.

These two are compared constantly because they occupy the same slot on a shortlist: the serious, well-funded, structured headless platforms that a company can defend choosing. They are not, however, close substitutes, and the thing that separates them is not a feature.

It is a question about your organisation. Who builds the content model, and where does it live afterwards? On Sanity the answer is a developer, and it lives in your repository. On Contentful it is anyone with a login, and it lives in Contentful's database. Everything else on this page follows from that single split.

We run this site on Sanity, which is disclosed here because it is the reason we can speak to the daily experience of one side rather than only its documentation. Sanity pays us nothing and has no involvement in this page. Our Contentful assessment comes from building a content type in a blank space in August 2026 and from the vendor's published material.

Where the money actually goes

The headline comparison is misleading in both directions. Sanity's free tier is unusually generous at twenty seats, and its paid plan is priced per person, so the bill follows your org chart. Contentful's free plan is real but small, and its first paid step is $300 a month, the largest single jump of the nine platforms we ranked.

Which is cheaper therefore depends on a shape, not a size. Six people publishing constantly is cheap on Sanity and expensive on Contentful. Forty people who occasionally need to look at something is the reverse, because Contentful bills the Space rather than the person.

The short answer

Sanity

4.0 / 5

Pick Sanity if Pick Sanity if a developer owns the site and will still be there next year. The schema is code in your repository, reviewed and reverted like anything else, and the editor can be shaped around your content rather than the reverse.

Where it falls short: There is no default editor to fall back on, so nothing exists for a content team to open until somebody builds and deploys one. Per-seat pricing also means the bill grows with headcount rather than usage, which gets expensive for a large editorial department.

From: $15 per seat/mo
Free plan: Yes

Visit Sanity Read our Sanity review

Contentful

3.5 / 5

Pick Contentful if Pick Contentful if one body of content must serve several brands, regions or languages and the people modelling it are not developers. Locales, granular roles and workflow are core concepts here rather than things you assemble yourself.

Where it falls short: The first paid step is $300 a month with nothing in between it and free, and the content model lives in the vendor's database rather than in your version control, so a colleague clicking in the interface creates drift your repository knows nothing about.

From: $0 for 10 users; Lite $300/mo
Free plan: Yes

Visit Contentful Read our Contentful review

Side by side

	Sanity	Contentful
Where the content model lives	Schema files in your repository, deployed with the application	Contentful's database, with export and migration tooling on top
Building a four-field content type	A few lines in a schema file, reviewable in a pull request	Roughly fifteen interactions across four dialogs, no toolchain needed
The editing interface out of the box	Nothing until you build and deploy a Studio	A consistent structured editor from the first afternoon
What the free plan gives you	20 seats, 10,000 documents, public datasets only	10 users, 100K API calls a month, hard stop rather than overage
The first paid step	$15 per seat a month	$300 a month, with nothing between it and free
What the bill follows	People, so cost tracks the org chart	Spaces and their quotas, so cost tracks projects and volume
Localisation and multi-market publishing	Possible, but not what the platform is designed around	Locales and multi-market delivery are core concepts
Roles, permissions and editorial workflow	Coarse below the quoted tier	Custom roles, teams and workflow built for large organisations
What an AI agent can change	Documents, schema and releases over MCP, plus the schema files directly	Entries and content types over MCP, but only inside their database
Uptime commitment and single sign-on	Both on the quoted Enterprise tier	Both on the quoted Enterprise tier, up to 99.99%

Which one, given what you have

A product team with developers, publishing to a custom front end. Sanity, without much hesitation. The schema in version control and an editor shaped to your content are worth the build phase, and at that team size the per-seat bill is small.

A marketing department with no engineering support. Contentful. Sanity has no editing experience until somebody creates one, and a team that cannot create one is buying a blank page.

One brand, one language, one site. Neither is an obvious answer, and both are more platform than the job needs. Look at Storyblok if the daily work is assembling pages, or Strapi if you would rather own the whole thing.

Several markets, several brands, a large editorial team. Contentful, and the $300 step stops being the deciding factor. What you are buying is the locale model and the permissions, and nothing on the other side of this page replaces them.

A codebase where an AI agent does much of the work. Sanity, because a schema an agent can read in the repository beats one it has to query an API to discover. Both expose the content model over MCP, which is more than most of this category, but only one of them also leaves the model in your git history.

The question that settles it

Ask who will change the content model in eighteen months, and where you would look to find out what changed. If the answer is a developer and a pull request, that is Sanity. If it is a content lead and an audit log, that is Contentful.

Frequently asked questions

Is Sanity cheaper than Contentful?

For a small team, substantially. Sanity's free tier covers twenty seats and its paid plan is $15 per seat a month, while Contentful's first paid step is $300 a month. That reverses at scale: because Contentful bills Spaces rather than people, an organisation where forty people need occasional access can be cheaper there than on a per-seat platform.

Which is better for developers?

Sanity, fairly clearly. The schema is code in your repository, the editing interface is a React application you control, and GROQ resolves joins and projections in a single query. Contentful's developer experience is competent and its APIs are standard, but the content model living in a browser rather than in git is the thing developers most often object to.

Which is better for non-technical content teams?

Contentful, on day one at least. Everything is done in a browser, so a content strategist can build and revise types without a developer, a toolchain or a deployment. Sanity can end up better for the same people, because the editor is built around their content, but only if somebody builds it well.

Can I move from one to the other later?

The content can move, since both expose everything over an API. What does not move is the work: content models, editorial habits and any custom interface all have to be rebuilt. Treat this as a decision with a real switching cost rather than a reversible experiment, which is why the organisational question matters more than the feature list.

Which one handles multiple languages better?

Contentful, without much argument. Locales are a core part of the model rather than a pattern you implement, and the permissions and workflow around them are built for teams publishing into several markets at once. If localisation is the reason you are buying a CMS, this is the deciding difference.

How did we assess these two?

Unevenly, and it is worth saying so. This site has run on Sanity for around six months, so that side reflects daily use. For Contentful we built a content type from scratch in a blank space in August 2026 and read the published documentation and pricing, most recently on 8 September 2026. We have not run a multi-market Contentful project, which is the capability it is strongest on.

Still torn?

Tell us how you’d use it and we’ll tell you which of the two we’d pick.

Get a recommendation