# Adobe Experience Manager to Payload migration > How to migrate from Adobe Experience Manager to Payload, with a side-by-side comparison and FAQs. --- ## Source: Adobe Experience Manager - **Type:** headless - **Official site:** https://business.adobe.com/products/experience-manager/sites.html - **Pricing:** https://business.adobe.com/products/experience-manager/pricing.html - **Last reviewed:** 2026-07-28 ## Key advantages AEM is the kind of platform you only choose if you’re a Fortune 500 company or you enjoy voluntary suffering. I’m not an Adobe fan. It’s bloated, overpriced, and built to lock you into their ecosystem. But fine, here are the positives. The Adobe integration is the real draw. If your organisation already lives inside Creative Cloud, Analytics, and Target, AEM becomes a giant DXP monolith that handles assets, personalisation, segmentation, and multi-channel delivery from one place. The DAM is genuinely strong, now split into Assets Prime and Assets Ultimate tiers, and it scales to enormous traffic when you throw infrastructure at it. If you’re not operating at scale, you’ll spend absurd money for problems a clean Sanity + modern composable stack solves better and cheaper. If you are considering AEM or escaping it, get in touch. We’ll help you choose something that won’t haunt your ops team for the next decade. ### Integration with Adobe tools AEM connects with Creative Cloud, Analytics, and Target, letting teams move assets, data, and personalisation logic across tools without friction ### Powerful digital asset management The DAM is genuinely powerful. It has AI tagging, smart cropping, versioning, and bulk optimisation for massive media libraries. ### Consistent multi-channel delivery AEM can push content to web, mobile apps, email, and more from one central source. Ideal for enterprises that need consistent messaging across every customer touchpoint. ### Flexible architecture Runs headful, headless, or hybrid. Teams can serve Content Fragments over GraphQL, author on a live frontend with the Universal Editor, or ship through Edge Delivery Services, then mix that with legacy setups. Adaptable for companies with complicated stacks. ### Scalable enterprise-level operations AEM is designed to handle huge traffic, global teams, and heavy workflows. It scales reliably when backed by proper infrastructure and Adobe’s cloud. ### Intuitive user interface For an enterprise platform, the UI is relatively approachable, helping large content teams manage complex workflows without needing to touch code. ## Key pain points AEM’s biggest flaw is simple: everything about it is expensive. The license, the hosting, the maintenance, the consultants, the upgrades, and the people required to even use it. The learning curve is a cliff, implementation cycles move at glacial speed, and the UI feels like punishment for asking to edit content. Performance tanks the moment you customise anything, and collaboration is basically "email the PDF and pray." If you ever see the word specialised in an AEM context, just assume the invoice comes with an extra zero. It’s the definition of a heavyweight DXP built for organisations with more bureaucracy than sense. For everyone else, it becomes a slow-moving, over-engineered system that requires Adobe-certified babysitters just to stay alive. If you’re considering scrapping it for something faster, saner, and built this decade, we can help you migrate without dragging the AEM baggage along for the ride. ### High complexity and cost AEM is one of the most expensive CMS/DEXP platforms on the market, with licensing, hosting, and maintenance costs that only make sense for very large enterprises. ### Steep learning curve The platform is dense and requires specialised training just to perform routine tasks. Most teams can’t operate it without dedicated experts. ### Prolonged implementation periods Even simple projects take months. Rollouts, upgrades, and workflow changes move slowly and require careful planning to avoid breaking things. ### Challenging navigation of capabilities AEM packs in a huge feature set, but finding and configuring what you actually need can feel like wading through molasses. ### Necessary reliance on Adobe partners You’re essentially forced into using Adobe-certified agencies or consultants for setup, maintenance, and troubleshooting and they don’t come cheap. ### Not ideal for smaller companies The cost, complexity, and operational overhead make AEM a poor fit for startups or mid-sized teams. Most will drown in it long before they benefit from it. ## Target: Payload - **Type:** headless - **Official site:** https://payloadcms.com - **Pricing:** https://payloadcms.com/enterprise - **Last reviewed:** 2026-07-28 ## Key advantages Payload is genuinely strong tech. It’s fast, open-source, developer-first, and perfect if you want full control over your content model. The Next.js integration is smooth, the admin UI is clean, and it’s one of the more flexible modern CMS options if your team prefers to build things exactly the way you want them. Just know that if you want actual features like visual editing, Vercel Blob storage, image handling, etc, you’ll be paying extra for the privilege. If you’re considering Payload or thinking about migrating into (or out of) it, reach out to us. We can help you figure out whether it’s the right stack or guide you toward a cleaner, saner (Sanity) setup. ### Integration with Next.js applications Payload works natively with Next.js, giving you clean data fetching and a smooth development flow. It removes the usual CMS friction so you can build fast, modern frontends without hacks. ### Fully customizable Everything is configured in code, which means you can tailor the CMS to your exact use case. You define the logic, workflows, and behaviour. ### Supports custom data models You can design any content structure your project needs, from simple documents to complex relational models. This gives you full control over how content is organised and delivered. ### Intuitive admin UI Payload’s admin panel is simple, clean, and fast. Editors can create, update, and manage content without training or digging through confusing menus. ### Custom plugins and APIs You can extend Payload however you like. Build custom fields, integrate external services, or add your own API routes. Perfect for teams that need deeper project-specific functionality. ### Built-in authentication Payload comes with user auth, roles, and access control baked in. No external auth service needed, and you can customise permissions to match your editorial workflow. ## Key pain points Payload’s biggest issue is how quickly it hands you the responsibility baton. Because it leans so heavily on self-hosting, you’re suddenly running databases, managing infra, dealing with scaling, and debugging auth quirks at 11 pm. And since the platform is still maturing, updates can feel unpredictable, and the surrounding ecosystem isn’t quite deep enough yet to soften the landing when something breaks. The recent Figma acquisition didn’t help either. Support has felt a bit lighter, and some priorities clearly shifted, alongside pricing. Payload feels flexible on day one, the moment your project grows you’re either engineering around gaps or paying more than expected. If you're debating whether Payload fits the future of your stack (or you’re already feeling the cracks), we’re always happy to help you plan a cleaner path or a migration that won’t come back to bite you. ### Steep learning curve Payload’s code-first approach means you need solid dev experience to use it effectively. Non-technical teams will struggle, and onboarding takes longer compared to more guided CMSs. ### Smaller ecosystem of plugins There aren’t many ready-made extensions, so you’ll end up building features yourself. This adds development time and increases long-term maintenance. ### Potential performance overhead Because it’s a full JavaScript backend, Payload can get resource-heavy under high traffic. You’ll need to optimise your server setup and monitor performance more closely. ### Gaps in documentation The docs are improving, but there are still missing pieces and unclear sections. New users often have to dig through GitHub issues to find answers. ### Small community The community is growing but still small, so there’s less shared knowledge, fewer tutorials, and slower troubleshooting compared to bigger CMS ecosystems. ### Requires separate hosting Payload doesn’t come with built-in hosting, so you’re responsible for setting up and managing your server. That adds extra cost, extra setup, and extra operational overhead. ## Frequently asked questions ### How much does Adobe Experience Manager cost? AEM is one of the most expensive CMS platforms going. Adobe publishes no list prices, so everything is a custom enterprise quote. From contracts we've seen, AEM Sites licensing tends to start around $60,000 per year on its own, and a full AEM as a Cloud Service deployment usually lands in the six figures, often $200,000 or more annually once you factor in usage. Implementation runs another $100,000 to $500,000+, and Adobe support contracts add 15-25% of licensing on top. We've watched companies pay more for their AEM contract than for their entire engineering team's salaries. If that ratio sounds familiar, it's time to rethink the stack. ### Can I migrate from AEM to Sanity? Yes, and it's one of the more common moves we handle. The work is real but tractable. For an enterprise instance, plan for a few weeks to a few months depending on how customised AEM is. The biggest bottleneck is content extraction. AEM's JCR (Java Content Repository) stores everything in a proprietary node structure that needs custom tooling to export cleanly. Custom OSGi bundles, Sling models, and heavy DAM workflows all get rebuilt or replaced, usually with something far simpler. We run a parallel build, standing up Sanity and a modern frontend while AEM stays live, then cut over once content and redirects are validated. Editorial teams keep working throughout. ### What are AEM's main limitations? Cost is the headline, but it isn't the only one. Development is slow because nearly everything routes through Java, OSGi, and Sling, so even small changes need a dedicated dev. Performance degrades the moment you customise the platform. The author UI is dense, and routine content work often still depends on engineers. You're also tied to Adobe-certified partners for setup and upkeep, and contracts tend to carry multi-year lock-ins. The headless side (Content Fragments served over GraphQL, plus the Universal Editor) works, but it's bolted onto a DXP monolith rather than built lean from the start. ### Is AEM overkill for most sites? For most sites, yes. AEM earns its keep when an organisation already lives inside Creative Cloud, Analytics, and Target and needs governance across hundreds of properties. If you're not using several of those Adobe tools, you're paying enterprise rates for a CMS that's slower to build on and more expensive to staff than the alternatives. We've met teams who adopted AEM on a consultant's recommendation, then found they used maybe 15% of it. A Sanity backend with a Next.js frontend would have cost a fraction and shipped faster. Three things to watch if you do leave. DAM assets with custom metadata and renditions don't transfer automatically. Dispatcher and Sling URL patterns need careful redirect mapping to hold SEO value. Contract lock-ins can carry steep early-termination fees.