Headless CMS comparison: WordPress vs. Payload with Next.js

Contents

1. Overview of Headless CMS

1.1. What does "Headless" mean?

1.2. Advantages of Headless Systems

2. Headless WordPress with Next.js

2.1. Setup and Architecture

2.2. Using REST API vs. GraphQL

2.3. Extensibility with Plugins (e.g., ACF, WPGraphQL)

2.4. Advantages and Disadvantages

3. Payload CMS with Next.js

3.1. Introduction to Payload CMS

3.2. Setup and Configuration

3.3. Local API and Data Models

3.4. Advantages and Disadvantages

4. Comparison of Both Systems

4.1. Development Effort and Learning Curve

4.2. Performance and Scalability

4.3. Security and Maintenance

4.4. Flexibility in Content Modeling

4.5. Community and Ecosystem

4.6. Cost Aspects

4.7. Localization and Multilingualism

4.8. Customizing and Expanding the Admin Interface

4.9. Support for Monorepos and Modern Dev Workflows

4.10. Next.js vs. PHP as a Technology Stack

4.11. Data Retrieval and API Integration

4.12. Database Support

5. Use Cases and Decision-Making Guides

5.1. When is Headless WordPress Suitable?

5.2. When is Payload the Better Choice?

6. Conclusion

1. Overview of Headless CMS

1.1. What does "Headless" mean?

A "Headless CMS" is a content management and delivery system in which the presentation layer (the "frontend") is completely decoupled from the backend. Unlike traditional CMSs like WordPress in its standard configuration, where content creation and display are tightly linked, a Headless CMS delivers content to any frontend via an API – typically REST or GraphQL.

This architecture allows developers to use modern frameworks such as Next.js, React, Vue.js, or even native mobile apps to display content. This means they are no longer bound by the limitations of a traditional CMS frontend.

1.2. Advantages of Headless Systems

Headless architectures offer a variety of advantages, especially in more complex or multi-channel digital projects:

• Technological freedom: Developers can choose the frontend technology best suited to the project.
• Performance: Static rendering (SSG) or server-side rendering (SSR) with Next.js allows for extremely fast and SEO-friendly websites.
• Omnichannel capability: Content can be used simultaneously across websites, mobile apps, digital displays, voice assistants, and other channels.
• Scalability and flexibility: Content can be managed centrally and modified regardless of the presentation layer.
• Security: Because the frontend is operated separately from the CMS, the attack surface is significantly reduced.

Headless CMSs are particularly attractive for modern companies that require a strong online presence while also valuing customized user experiences, speed, and scalability.

2. Headless WordPress with Next.js

2.1. Setup and Architecture

WordPress is one of the world's most popular content management systems – although it wasn't originally designed as a headless system, it can still be converted to a headless setup relatively easily. WordPress acts exclusively as a backend for content management, while the frontend is controlled by a modern JavaScript framework such as Next.js.

WordPress content is provided via the integrated REST API or via plugins such as WPGraphQL. Next.js handles page rendering – either statically (SSG), server-side (SSR), or client-side rendering (CSR). This means that WordPress only handles the content, while Next.js is responsible for presentation, performance, and routing.

2.2. Using the REST API vs. GraphQL

By default, WordPress provides a REST API that can be used to retrieve posts, pages, menus, media, and other content. This may be sufficient for simpler headless projects, but quickly reaches its limits with more complex structures.

The WPGraphQL plugin extends WordPress with a powerful GraphQL interface. This allows you to query precisely the data needed in the frontend – resulting in leaner queries and better performance. WPGraphQL integrates well with tools like Apollo Client or urql, or you can use pure fetch queries with Next.js.

2.3. Extensibility with Plugins (e.g., ACF, WPGraphQL)

A major advantage of WordPress is its vast ecosystem of plugins and extensions. Particularly noteworthy are:

• Advanced Custom Fields (ACF): Enables the flexible creation of custom content fields and custom blocks.
• WPGraphQL for ACF: Integrates ACF fields into the GraphQL API.
• Custom Post Types UI, Polylang, Yoast SEO – many plugins are now compatible with headless architectures.

These extensions allow for a very flexible WordPress backend – however, you must ensure that the plugins also work in headless mode and make their data available via the API.

2.4. Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

• Well-known and mature CMS with a large community
• User-friendly backend for editors and content teams
• Enormous plugin diversity and high extensibility
• WPGraphQL and ACF offer many options for modeling complex content

Disadvantages:

• Not designed from the ground up as a headless system – requires adjustments
• Dependency on plugins for key functions such as GraphQL
• Technical maintenance (security updates, performance, hosting) remains necessary
• REST API often limited to individual requirements

3. Payload CMS with Next.js

3.1. Introduction to Payload CMS

Payload CMS is a modern, Node.js-based headless CMS designed specifically for developers. It combines a powerful admin panel with fully customizable content models and is fully TypeScript compatible. Unlike traditional systems like WordPress, Payload is designed from the ground up as an API-centric solution, delivering content through a local API or HTTP requests.

Payload is ideally suited for modern JavaScript stacks and integrates seamlessly with frameworks like Next.js—especially if you value high performance, strict typing, and full control over the backend and frontend.

3.2. Setup and Configuration

Payload is set up with a simple Node.js installation. Data models (collections, globals, custom blocks, etc.) are defined in code, typically in a monorepo structure together with Next.js. This makes the entire CMS structure versionable and traceable – in contrast to the click-based configuration of traditional CMSs.

A typical setup includes:

• a payload.config.ts file for defining all collections and global content
• use of the local API (localAPI) or the REST endpoint (/api/...)
• support for GraphQL: Payload comes with a complete GraphQL interface out of the box (/api/graphql)
• optional custom auth strategies, access control, and file uploads

The integrated GraphQL API is automatically available as soon as Payload is running and can be integrated with tools such as Apollo Client, GraphQL Code Generator, or urql. Introspective tools such as GraphiQL or Postman can also be easily deployed. The queries and mutations are generated dynamically from the configured data model.

Payload thus offers three options for data integration:

• Local API (e.g., directly in Next.js, getStaticProps or generateMetadata)
• REST API (for classic HTTP clients or external systems)
• GraphQL API (ideal for structured, complex queries in the frontend)

3.3. Local API and Data Models

A special highlight of Payload is the local API – it enables direct data access on the server side (e.g., in Next.js, getServerSideProps or generateStaticParams) without additional HTTP requests. This leads to:

• Faster data access
• Lower latency and higher performance
• Full TypeScript autocompletion and type safety

In Payload, content is structured using collections (such as "Posts," "Pages," "Projects") that are precisely described using TypeScript interfaces. Even complex structures such as nested blocks, relational fields, or multilingualism can be modeled.

3.4. Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Completely developer-centric: Everything is definable and versionable in code
• Local API with full control over data flow
• Excellent TypeScript integration and developer experience
• Easy integration into monorepos and modern DevOps workflows
• Flexible admin panel that can be extended and styled

Cons:

• Less user-friendly for non-technical writers, especially compared to WordPress
• Still a relatively young ecosystem, smaller community
• No built-in themes or plugins – everything is built from scratch
• Requires more technical setup, especially for multilingual support or complex role and permission concepts

4. Comparison of the two systems

4.1. Development effort and learning curve

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

Using WordPress in headless mode seems attractive at first glance, especially for teams with a WordPress background. However, when it comes to implementing a fully-fledged headless setup, the level of complexity increases significantly.

• The decoupling from the classic theme system means that the entire frontend must be rebuilt in Next.js.
• For backend configuration – especially for custom post types, ACF fields, or custom blocks – a good knowledge of PHP is required. This is a significant disadvantage for pure JavaScript teams.
• WordPress's REST API is not sufficient for all use cases. Many plugins (e.g., SEO plugins, custom fields, form plugins) do not offer full REST or GraphQL integration.
• Using WPGraphQL solves many of these limitations, but not all plugins fully support it.
• In more complex projects, you often have to combine REST and GraphQL, which can lead to inconsistent data structures, duplication of effort, and higher maintenance.
• Learning curve: steep – especially when simultaneously mastering WordPress (including PHP), ACF, REST, GraphQL, and Next.js.

Setup effort: high – due to the multitude of plugins, configuration files, API sharing, authentication, and CORS issues.

Typical challenges: API consistency, version control, plugin compatibility, SSR integration.

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload was specifically developed for JavaScript and TypeScript projects. This makes it a perfect fit for modern Jamstack architectures:

• All configuration is done in code – with full typing by TypeScript.
• No knowledge of PHP or other external technologies is required – everything is based on Node.js.
• The choice between a local API, REST API, and GraphQL API allows for flexible data strategies without additional plugins.
• No plugin dependency: All content, auth logic, and fields are created in code and remain versionable.
• Payloads can be deployed separately (classic headless model) or combined with Next.js as a monorepo – e.g., with shared CI/CD, a consistent code style, and shared types. This significantly increases efficiency and maintainability.

Learning curve: medium – with existing knowledge of TypeScript, Node.js, and modern development workflows.

Setup effort: low to medium – no plugin hell, but clearly structured, reusable code.

Typical challenges: UX optimization for editors, initial data modeling, configuring multilingual support.

Conclusion: Who wins here? In terms of development effort and learning curve, Payload CMS is the clear winner – especially for development teams that prefer modern JavaScript technologies.

Headless WordPress offers a familiar editorial environment and extensive plugins, but comes with significant disadvantages compared to Payload due to its PHP dependency, inconsistent API integration, and additional setup complexity.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 1:0

4.2. Performance and Scalability

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

The classic WordPress installation is designed for dynamic PHP rendering – however, in headless mode, the frontend (e.g., with Next.js) handles the entire delivery of content. This significantly increases performance compared to a traditional WordPress theme.

Advantages:

• With Next.js SSG (Static Site Generation) or ISR (Incremental Static Regeneration), pages can be delivered very quickly – ideal for SEO and loading speed.
• Content can be integrated into the frontend via REST API or GraphQL and rendered during the build process or on demand.
• Caching strategies can be implemented flexibly using tools such as Vercel, Netlify, or custom CDN setups.

Limitations and Challenges:

• The WordPress API is not particularly fast – delays occur, especially with larger data volumes or nested ACF structures.
• GraphQL performance depends heavily on the server setup and plugin quality. WPGraphQL generates a PHP call for each query – this can quickly become a bottleneck with poor hosting infrastructure (e.g., shared hosting).
• No native support for edge functionality or serverless operation. Scaling requires manual setup (caching, load balancing, PHP-FPM tuning, etc.).

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload was developed with performance in mind – both for developers and the end product. Its focus on Node.js, zero-overhead API access, and flexible deployment strategies make it ideal for modern, scalable web applications.

Advantages:

• Local API: No overhead from network calls in the server context. Data is available directly in the process.
• Native SSR and SSG support with Next.js – ideal for high-performance rendering while simultaneously accessing CMS content.
• Optimal integration in serverless and edge environments – since everything is based on JavaScript, Payload can be scaled performantly, for example, in Vercel Functions, AWS Lambda, or Docker containers.
• Modern API selection: Payload offers both a full GraphQL API and a clean REST API – right out of the box. This allows developers to choose the appropriate query format based on project requirements.
• No dependence on PHP or relational databases, which traditionally scale poorly in high-load scenarios. Payload uses MongoDB by default but also supports other databases.

Limitations and challenges:

• Performance (as with all Node.js applications) depends on code quality, middleware, and server configuration – poorly configured Payload projects can also be slow.
• For extremely large projects, caching (e.g., Redis, ISR, CDN) must be set up manually.

Conclusion: Who wins here?

In terms of performance and scalability, Payload CMS clearly offers the more modern, efficient architecture – without legacy issues, plugins, or slow API queries.

WordPress can also be brought to a high performance level with Next.js, but only with additional effort, infrastructure tuning, and sometimes inconsistent behavior with large data volumes.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 2:0

4.3. Security and Maintenance

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

WordPress is by far one of the most widely used CMSs worldwide – and this makes it a popular target for attacks. Even in headless mode, WordPress presents typical security risks that must be actively managed:

Security Aspects:

• The attack surface remains despite decoupling, as the WordPress backend remains publicly accessible.
• A large number of plugins increases the risk of security vulnerabilities – many of these plugins are not regularly updated or have known vulnerabilities.
• The use of PHP as a server-side technology makes the system vulnerable to classic exploits (e.g., remote code execution, SQL injection).
• Authentication and role management must be checked manually and, if necessary, secured with additional plugins or middleware.
• Security plugins such as Wordfence or iThemes Security are often necessary – but increase complexity and maintenance costs.

Maintenance:

• WordPress requires regular core, theme, and plugin updates, often on a weekly basis.
• Compatibility issues after updates are not uncommon – especially with complex ACF fields or custom functions.
• Backups, malware scanning, database maintenance, and performance tuning must be actively planned and managed.

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload was developed from the ground up with a focus on security and modern development principles. Thanks to its Node.js architecture and consistent API encapsulation, the system is significantly more robust and easier to secure.

Security aspects:

• No unnecessarily open interface: The admin panel can be restricted to any route or completely placed behind authentication.
• No third-party plugins are required, significantly reducing the attack surface.
• Security-critical areas (login, password reset, API access) are secured with middleware, rate limiting, and role-based access control.
• All authentication mechanisms can be implemented or customized – e.g., with JWT, OAuth, Magic Links, etc.
• Payload is actively developed and is completely open source, making security updates transparent and traceable.

Maintenance:

• Updates are performed via npm/yarn and can be automated via CI/CD.
• Since the entire setup is code-based, version levels, backups, and migrations are very well controlled.
• There are no security risks from third-party themes or plugins.
• No dependency on a monolith – if necessary, the frontend and backend can be maintained and deployed independently.

Conclusion: Who wins here?

In terms of security and maintainability, Payload CMS is clearly superior. The reduced complexity, the clearly controllable API interface, and the lack of external plugins make it a more robust solution – especially for security-critical or professional applications.

WordPress can also be secured, but it requires significantly more effort, expertise, and ongoing support.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 3:0

4.4. Flexibility in Content Modeling

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

In classic mode, WordPress offers many options for content management – ​​but in headless mode, the flexibility in content modeling is heavily dependent on plugins. The most popular and powerful tool for this is Advanced Custom Fields (ACF), used in conjunction with WPGraphQL or the REST API.

Capabilities:

• ACF allows you to create custom fields, repeaters, flexible content, and layout blocks.
• Custom Post Types (CPT) and taxonomies can achieve a certain level of structural depth.
• Together with WPGraphQL, it is possible to use content in a structured manner in the frontend – provided all plugins are correctly integrated.
• Integrating Gutenberg blocks into a headless frontend is technically feasible, but complex and requires manual mapping.

Limitations:

• No central, typed data model in the code – data models live in the database and are difficult to version.
• ACF fields must be manually connected to the API (e.g., via acf_to_rest_api or WPGraphQL extensions).
• WordPress quickly reaches its limits with more complex structures with nested blocks, relationships, or multilingual content.
• Changes to field groups can lead to inconsistencies when multiple developers work in parallel (not a true GitOps model).

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload was developed precisely for this use case: maximum control and flexibility in data modeling – entirely in code and with full TypeScript support.

Capabilities:

• Content is built modularly using collections, globals, and custom blocks.
• Each collection has a fully typed schema – including validation, access rights, UI options, and default values.
• Relations, repetitions, arrays, blocks, tabs, conditional logic – everything can be defined directly in the model.
• Changes to the model are traceable, versionable, and ideal for teamwork in Git repositories.
• The code structure allows you to create custom UI components for the admin panel, e.g., for complex image selection or nested layouts.

Strengths:

• Any data structure can be precisely mapped and typed – without workarounds or plugin dependencies.
• Type inheritance and common interfaces enable clear separation and reuse.
• Content is immediately structured and consistently available in the frontend – without API hacks or data manipulation.

Conclusion: Who wins here?

When it comes to content modeling, Payload CMS has a clear advantage. While WordPress can be quite powerful with ACF, it remains fragmented, difficult to version, and dependent on plugins. Payload, on the other hand, allows you to design, document, and maintain structured data models directly in code—a crucial factor, especially for scalable projects.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 4:0

4.5. Community and Ecosystem

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

WordPress has existed for over 20 years and has developed into the largest CMS community in the world. The ecosystem is vast and offers a solution for almost every problem in the form of plugins, themes, snippets, or tutorials.

Strengths:

• Very large community: Millions of developers worldwide, countless forums, groups, and resources.
• Thousands of plugins and extensions, many of them free or freemium.
• Wide selection of hosting providers, specifically optimized for WordPress.
• Long-standing stability – WordPress is established and is continuously being developed.
• Support for Gutenberg, WooCommerce, Multisite, SEO, localization, etc. is widely documented.

Limitations in the headless context:

• Many plugins are not designed for headless operation and return no or only incomplete API data.
• The combination of headless + ACF + GraphQL is technically possible, but only stable through the interaction of several plugins.
• Documentation and tutorials on the true headless stack with Next.js are inconsistent and often outdated or fragmented.
• The community is heavily PHP-centric – those who think in terms of React/Next.js will find less targeted help.

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload is significantly younger (since 2021), but already has a committed and growing community. The target audience is clearly developers who prefer modern tools and JavaScript.

Strengths:

• Active open source community on GitHub with fast issue response from the core team.
• Regular updates, understandable documentation, and sample projects.
• Central collection of starters, templates, and integrations (e.g., with Stripe, NextAuth, Cloudinary, etc.).
• Good Discord community and technical support from the maintainers.
• Focus on modern DevOps: Monorepo, CI/CD, TypeScript, Docker, Serverless – all supported at the core.

Limitations:

• Still smaller ecosystem, especially compared to the WordPress world.
• Not a large selection of third-party plugins – everything is built from scratch or derived from code examples.
• Tutorials and integrations are available, but some are still geared towards more complex use cases.

Conclusion: Who wins here?

When it comes to size, maturity, and diversity, WordPress remains the undisputed leader. In a classic or semi-headless environment, the plugin ecosystem is unbeatable.

But for purely headless-oriented projects, Payload offers a cleaner, leaner, and more modern developer ecosystem that is growing rapidly – ​​although it can't yet match the scope and breadth of WordPress.

✅ Winner: WordPress, with reservations – especially when a large ecosystem is necessary. Let's leave - 4:1

👨‍💻 Honorable Mention: Payload, for developers who prefer autonomy and control.

4.6. Cost Aspects

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

WordPress is open source and available free of charge – this also applies to headless operation. However, real-world projects often have hidden costs that aren't immediately apparent.

Cost Factors:

• Hosting: Affordable shared hosting is sufficient for traditional WordPress sites, but headless setups require separate hosting for the WordPress backend and the Next.js frontend (e.g., Vercel or dedicated Node.js hosting).
• Plugins: Many essential plugins (e.g., ACF Pro, WPML, SEO tools) are chargeable and require annual licenses. ACF Pro is required for the GPaphQL interface.
• Development Costs: The often necessary combination of PHP (for backend customizations) and JavaScript (for the frontend) increases development effort and team costs.
• Maintenance: Security and compatibility issues caused by plugin updates lead to ongoing maintenance work – especially with extensive setups.
• API Integration (REST/GraphQL): Additional work is often required to integrate plugin data into the API – this causes additional development effort.

Advantage: Getting started is inexpensive, especially if you already have experience with WordPress or can use existing structures.

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload is also open source and free to use, even in commercial projects. The business model is based on optional services such as Payload Cloud (hosting) or enterprise support.

Cost factors:

• Hosting: Can be fully self-hosted or operated via Payload Cloud. For self-hosted setups, an inexpensive Node.js server (e.g., VPS or Docker on Railway, Fly.io, etc.) is sufficient.
• No license costs: There are no paid plugins, add-ons, or modules. Everything is created in code, which means more predictability and lower recurring costs.
• Lower maintenance costs: No plugin updates, no conflicts with third-party developers, which saves a huge amount of time, especially in agency environments.
• Productivity: For teams already working in the JavaScript stack, development in Payload is often faster, cheaper, and easier to automate (CI/CD, testing, versioning).
• One-time setup costs: Higher than WordPress installations, but significantly more stable and cheaper to maintain in the long term.

Optional: Those who don't want to host their own solution can use Payload Cloud with professional support and an SLA. However, as with any SaaS, this comes with a monthly fee.

Conclusion: Who wins here?

In the long run, Payload CMS is often the more cost-effective solution, especially for custom projects where plugin costs, maintenance effort, and developer time are crucial.

WordPress may seem cheaper at first, but for complex headless projects, it quickly becomes a more costly system due to plugins, maintenance, and technical overhead.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 5:1

4.7. Localization and Multilingualism

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

WordPress doesn't offer built-in multilingual functionality, which is why plugins like Polylang or WPML are used in almost all multilingual projects. These plugins enable the assignment of translations at the page, post, and taxonomy levels.

Strengths:

• Well-known plugins: Polylang (free and Pro version) and WPML (commercial) have been established and widely used for years.
• Integration with ACF and WPGraphQL: Polylang supports ACF fields, and there are plugins like WPGraphQL for Polylang for retrieving localized content via GraphQL.
• Editor-friendly: Editors can easily switch between language versions and maintain content per language via the backend.

Limitations and Challenges:

• Technically complex in a headless context: The APIs deliver content per language – but the configuration in Next.js must actively process this structure.
• Additional plugins required: WPML/Polylang must interact correctly with ACF, WPGraphQL, and custom post types – this often causes conflicts or requires workarounds.
• Slug handling, menu translations, global content (e.g., footer, header) – everything must be manually adjusted to language contexts.
• Performance: Using multiple languages ​​significantly increases API load and build effort.

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload has offered native support for localization since version 1.4 – and it can be defined entirely in code. Developers can specify directly in the data model which fields are translatable and which are not. Multilingualism is thus deeply embedded in the system and not just an add-on.

Strengths:

• Field-level localization: Each field can be individually defined as "localized" – e.g., only the title and description, but not the image reference.
• Automatic language detection via URL structure or request parameters – ideal for Next.js implementations.
• Integration with Next.js + next-intl is clean and consistent – ​​thanks to typed content and identical structures per language.
• No external plugins are required; everything runs within the payload core.
• Multilingual navigation and global content (header, footer, settings) can be easily mapped per language using globals.

Limitations:

• Requires more initial planning: Developers must define the language structure themselves and, if necessary, manage slugs per language.
• It is necessary to determine whether the project will be multilingual right at the beginning of project development.
• No pre-built UI for editors to "compare language versions" like in WPML – requires some training.

Conclusion: Who wins here?

In traditional editorial operations, WordPress (with WPML or Polylang) offers a familiar UI – albeit at the expense of technical complexity and API consistency.

Payload CMS impresses with a clear, typed, and integrated solution that fits perfectly into modern headless workflows – without additional plugins and with clear separation of language variants.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 6:1

4.8. Customizing and Expanding the Admin Interface

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

The WordPress admin interface is still considered one of the most user-friendly in the CMS space. It has been optimized over the years and is valued by editors, bloggers, and marketing teams worldwide.

Strengths:

• Intuitive user interface that can be used even without technical knowledge
• WYSIWYG editor (TinyMCE or Gutenberg) for easy content creation
• User- and role-based access control out of the box
• Easy media library management, drag-and-drop image uploads, and bulk editing
• Plugins such as ACF enable visual configuration of input fields

Limitations:

• The admin interface has limited customization options without delving deeply into PHP development
• Custom UI components are difficult to integrate – e.g., custom widgets B. complex visualizations or custom widgets
• No native support for modern frameworks (e.g., React in the admin)
• ACF field types must be maintained manually – e.g., for previews, conditional display, or reuse
• Internationalization in the backend is often patchy or relies on community translations
• A serious drawback of the WordPress admin panel is the combination of PHP, jQuery, and React. Therefore, performance is not particularly fast.
• As the number of plugins installed increases, the admin panel becomes cluttered with ads, which is distracting when working.

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload's admin interface is built from the ground up in React and is fully extendable and customizable – both functionally and visually. This makes it particularly attractive for development teams who want to give their editors exactly what they need.

Strengths:

• Modern UI based on React + Tailwind – fast, responsive, and extensible
• Field-based logic and layout structure can be defined directly in the data modeling
• Custom UI components possible: custom input forms, previews, drag-and-drop logic, conditional fields, complex media tools
• Ability to brand the entire admin panel (logo, colors, menu structure)
• Dark mode, access restrictions, rich text with embed components – all integrated
• Localization and translation of UI text possible via custom configuration files

Limitations:

• Customization requires JavaScript/React knowledge – more difficult for non-developers to access
• Editors have to get used to a new, less "classic" interface
• No "Live Edit" or visual preview out-of-the-box (but possible with custom components)

Conclusion: Who wins here?

For non-technical users and traditional editorial processes, WordPress continues to offer a very user-friendly, familiar interface – especially for standard content.

Payload CMS, on the other hand, shows its strengths when individual requirements are placed on the admin interface: be it for complex data entry, workflow management, or customized editorial solutions.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS, for developers and individual requirements

📝 Honor point for WordPress, for editorial teams without technical support

So, let's hold a draw in this section and award each one 1 point – 7:2

4.9. Support for Monorepos and Modern Dev Workflows

WordPress (Headless) + Next.js

WordPress originates from a time when monorepos, CI/CD pipelines, and infrastructure-as-code were not yet standards. Nevertheless, a headless WordPress project can technically be integrated into modern workflows – albeit not without limitations.

Possibilities:

• The Next.js frontend can be easily integrated into a monorepo (e.g., with Turborepo, Nx, or pnpm workspaces).
• CI/CD can be automated for the frontend (e.g., Vercel, GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, etc.).
• WordPress itself can be containerized (Docker) and managed using Composer, for example. B. with Bedrock setup
• Data models (e.g., ACF-JSON, CPT UI exports) can be partially versioned

Limitations:

• WordPress itself is a monolithic PHP system that was not developed for code-first workflows or typed interfaces
• ACF configurations and plugin settings are stored in the database – versioning is only possible with tricks (e.g., acf-json directories)
• No native support for TypeScript or shared type definitions between backend and frontend
• Different technologies in the stack (PHP + JS) complicate common toolchains, linting, testing, and DevOps standards

Payload CMS + Next.js

Payload is a modern developer CMS built precisely for such use cases: monorepo-friendly, CI/CD-ready, API-first, type-safe, and JavaScript-native.

Strengths:

• Ideal for monorepo structures – payload and Next.js can live in the same project, with shared types, components, and helper functions
• TypeScript-first: shared type definitions between CMS models and frontend – no guesswork, no inconsistencies
• Local API directly in the same process – ideal for server components or generateStaticParams in Next.js
• Modular code structure, perfect integration with Turborepo, pnpm, Yarn workspaces
• Unified stack (Node.js + TypeScript) facilitates testing, linting, formatting, and CI/CD
• Easy use of tools such as ESLint, Prettier, Husky, Commitlint, Docker, Vercel CLI, etc.

Limits:

• Requires initial conventions and CI/CD structure – especially if you're coming from a "classic" CMS
• No visual installer or configuration wizard – everything is done in code

Conclusion: Who wins here?

For modern web development with a focus on typing, versioning, CI/CD, and monorepos, Payload CMS is clearly superior. WordPress can be customized, but often feels like a foreign element in the modern dev stack.

Those who rely on modern, scalable development benefit from a seamless workflow with Payload, without any technology disruptions.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 8:2

4.10. Next.js vs. PHP as a Technology Stack

PHP (WordPress)

PHP is a server-side scripting language that has formed the backbone of many web applications for over two decades – most notably WordPress. Although PHP has evolved (e.g., PHP 8.3 with JIT compiler), much of the WordPress ecosystem is still based on older paradigms.

Strengths:

• Wide availability and support: Almost every hosting provider supports PHP – with affordable entry-level plans
• Large pool of developers, especially in the WordPress space
• Many ready-made solutions: Themes, plugins, builders, shortcodes – often usable without programming knowledge
• Solid documentation and a long history

Weaknesses in a modern context:

• Not optimized for modern front-end frameworks – classic rendering logic is page-based, not component-based
• No native module/type system, no modern toolchain (as is the case with Node.js)
• Integration with modern tools (e.g., Vite, Tailwind, State, GraphQL, Edge rendering) is cumbersome or impossible
• In mixed projects (PHP + React), technology gaps and maintenance problems arise

Next.js (JavaScript/TypeScript)

Next.js is a modern React-based framework for developing web applications. It supports both SSG, SSR, Edge Rendering, and Server Actions. It is the backbone of modern web stacks (Jamstack, App Router, API Routes, RSC, etc.).

Strengths:

• Modern, component-based architecture: reusability, testable UI elements, modular structure
• Server components and API integration: routing, data fetching, middleware – all from a single source
• Edge-ready, scalable, CDN-compatible: ideal for global applications with minimal latency
• TypeScript support and tooling: Intellisense, type safety, automated error prevention
• Seamless integration with Payload, Strapi, GraphQL, Prisma, Tailwind, State, etc.

Challenges:

• Higher entry barrier for beginners – understanding of build processes, API layers, deployment
• Fast-moving ecosystem – regular changes (e.g., App Router vs. Pages Router) require active learning
• Self-responsibility for architectural decisions – but also full control

Conclusion: Who wins here?

For classic CMS projects with low technical requirements, PHP (especially with WordPress) is a solid foundation.

For modern, scalable, component-based web applications, Next.js is clearly the future – especially in combination with a headless CMS like Payload. The technology stack offers greater flexibility, better performance, and is more future-proof for complex use cases.

✅ Winner: Next.js with Payload CMS - 9:2

4.11. Data Retrieval and API Integration

WordPress (Headless)

WordPress offers a REST API by default, which can be used to retrieve content such as posts, pages, menus, media, or custom fields. For more complex queries, WPGraphQL is an indispensable plugin – but both variants have their own unique features.

REST API:

• Quickly deployed and integrated
• Sufficient for simple GET queries (e.g., all posts in a category)
• Weakness: Data is often not optimally structured – many API calls are necessary, overfetching or underfetching
• Custom fields and CPTs require additional configuration or plugins (e.g., acf-to-rest-api)
• Weakly typed, no real query logic – filtering is often required on the client side

GraphQL (WPGraphQL):

• Allows you to query only the required data
• Very powerful in combination with ACF – however, each field must be manually enabled
• More complex queries are possible, but performance depends on server load and plugin configuration
• Not a native part of WordPress – plugin is a third-party solution with its own development cycle
• Issues with authentication or caching are not uncommon in production setups

Payload CMS

Payload offers three equally valid methods out of the box Data access types: local API, REST API, and GraphQL API. This makes it one of the most flexible systems in the headless CMS space.

Local API:

• Extremely high-performance – direct function calls in the same process, no network overhead
• Ideal for getStaticProps, generateMetadata, RSC, or Server Actions in Next.js
• Allows full control and access to the payload context (e.g., Auth, User, Session)
• Strongly typed and usable directly in the editor with autocompletion
• Particularly suitable for monorepos or serverless deployments

REST API:

• Clearly structured, predictable JSON schema
• Filterable, paginable, extensible (query parameters, access protection)
• Authentication via cookies, JWT, or token headers

GraphQL API:

• Automatically generated types based on the schema
• No additional configuration required – all fields are automatically available
• Fully compatible with tools such as Apollo Client, urql, GraphQL Code Generator
• Very good developer experience and integration into modern toolchains

Conclusion: Who wins here?

While WordPress can essentially cover everything with REST and WPGraphQL, integration is often fragmented, plugin-dependent, and lacks type-safety.

Payload CMS offers a consistent, modern API experience—whether local, REST, or GraphQL—with better performance, clear structures, and no workarounds.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 10:2

4.12 Database Support

WordPress (Headless)

WordPress is traditionally based on MySQL (or MariaDB) and uses a predefined table structure optimized for classic blog or content scenarios. This structure is retained even in headless operation.

Strengths:

• Proven setup: MySQL is robust, widely used, and supported by almost every hosting provider.
• Good tools for backups, exports, and migrations (e.g., phpMyAdmin, WP-CLI, All-in-One Migration).
• Plugins like ACF also store data in well-known tables (postmeta, options, usermeta).

Limitations:

• The table structure is not optimized for complex relationships or structured content.
• Nested content (e.g., repeater fields) is often stored as serialized data, which complicates direct database access and migration processes.
• No native support for migration scripts, DB schema versioning, or typed queries.
• No native support for alternative databases such as PostgreSQL or NoSQL.

Payload CMS

Payload uses MongoDB by default—a document-based NoSQL database that handles flexible, nested content structures and relational references very well. PostgreSQL support (currently in development/community-driven) is also available as an option.

Strengths:

• Flexible, schema-based model – each collection is stored as a JSON-like document
• Nested objects, arrays, references, and repetitions can be mapped natively and efficiently
• No serialized values; all data is readable and editable directly in the database
• Versioning and soft deletes are possible
• Migrations can be defined via code, as the entire model lives in TypeScript
• Compatible with cloud solutions such as MongoDB Atlas, Docker backups, cluster sharding, etc.

Limitations:

• Knowledge of MongoDB or document-based databases is helpful
• For extremely relational or structured business logic, SQL can still be useful (e.g., in combination with external tools)

Conclusion: Who wins here?

WordPress relies on a traditional, but limited, data model with MySQL – sufficient for simple content, but rather a hindrance for complex structures.

Payload CMS uses modern, flexible databases like MongoDB, which are better suited to headless architectures, handle nested content more easily, and integrate seamlessly into modern DevOps environments.

✅ Winner: Payload CMS - 11:2

5. Use Cases and Decision-Making Aids

5.1. When is Headless WordPress Suitable?

Despite its limitations in the modern development context, headless WordPress remains a sensible choice in certain scenarios:

If the following conditions apply:

• Existing WordPress site needs to be migrated to a modern frontend
• Editors or marketing teams are familiar with WordPress and require a simple user interface
• Projects with limited budgets that will continue to use many existing plugins or themes
• Simple content model (e.g., blog, news, landing pages) without complex relationships or dynamic components
• Agencies with existing WordPress workflows that only want to modernize the frontend
• SEO plays an important role, but technical perfection is not the priority

Typical use cases:

• Corporate websites with predominantly static content
• Editorial portals with existing WordPress backend infrastructure
• Marketing sites with ACF + Next.js frontend
• MVPs where a quick start with familiar tools is crucial

5.2. When is Payload CMS the better choice?

Payload CMS is ideal for projects that focus on modernity, flexibility, performance, and code-first development.

If the following requirements are met:

• The project is being developed from scratch, without legacy software
• Developers prefer to work with JavaScript/TypeScript and modern toolchains
• The content model is complex, nested, or highly relational
• There are multiple languages, individual roles, API access, or server-side logic
• The project should be scalable, versioned, and implemented with CI/CD capability
• The frontend and backend should be maintained together in a single repository

Typical use cases:

• SaaS platforms, internal dashboards, developer portals
• Corporate websites with dynamic, component-based layouts
• Agency websites or microsites with specific requirements
• Multilingual websites with structured navigation and global content
• Projects with high performance requirements or edge rendering

6. Conclusion

In today's web development landscape, developers, agencies, and companies face the question: Which headless CMS is right for my project?

Our analysis clearly shows that both headless WordPress and payload CMS have their place – but with fundamentally different philosophies:

Headless WordPress impresses...

• with its familiarity, especially for editors and marketing teams
• with a vast ecosystem of plugins, themes, and expertise
• as a bridge between the traditional CMS world and the modern frontend
• for simple projects with a short time-to-market

But: For headless deployments, WordPress is often more complicated, plugin-dependent, and harder to maintain. The combination of REST, GraphQL, ACF, Polylang, and PHP can quickly become confusing in complex scenarios.

Payload CMS impresses...

• with its modern architecture, based on TypeScript and Node.js
• with clearly structured, typed data models in the code
• with native support for REST, GraphQL, and local APIs
• in monorepos, CI/CD pipelines, serverless deployments, and modern dev stacks
• with less maintenance effort and a maximum developer experience

Payload is clearly the more future-proof system for projects where technical scalability, speed, and structural consistency are paramount.

Our conclusion:

In our comparison, there is a clear winner: Payload CMS in combination with Next.js.

Headless WordPress certainly has its strengths and can be used effectively in certain scenarios. However, if it's a headless project, we believe it's better to avoid WordPress. Use WordPress for small projects, MVPs, or in environments with a strong editorial focus, but in the classic version.

But if you're starting a new project today that needs to be scalable, performant, and maintainable over the long term, we clearly recommend: rely on Payload.

It offers the latest technology, full control, consistent data structures, and an excellent developer experience – without the legacy burdens of traditional CMSs.