# BaseHub to Adobe Experience Manager migration > How to migrate from BaseHub to Adobe Experience Manager, with a side-by-side comparison and FAQs. --- ## Source: BaseHub - **Type:** headless - **Official site:** https://basehub.com - **Pricing:** https://basehub.com/pricing - **Last reviewed:** 2026-07-28 ## Key advantages BaseHub CMS is generating buzz among developers for its fast, collaborative, and AI-powered environment. We really like the Notion style editor. Feels great to drop a / and you type in what you want. E.g heading, or bullet points etc. It's pretty good for creating and organizing content. Even for teams that are new to CMS platforms. Features like easy nested repeater fields, real-time branching for team workflows, and a built-in GraphQL API impress both solo makers and growing agencies. The platform’s Typesafe approach and AI-assisted writing tools help speed up the publishing process, while modern UI design keeps the learning curve gentle for newcomers. If you can handle the initial information overload when you first spin up an environment it's an incredible tool for collaboration and rapid site scaffolding. They also have a pretty good freemium pricing model (nodody has as good as Sanity) and strong documentation help projects get off the ground quickly, especially for Next.js and React use cases. Frequent updates and community engagement is high, and the core team that built it, are from a really nice design focused agency. So can't knock it that much. ### Intuitive Notion-style editor Drop a / to insert blocks. The Notion-style editor is intuitive: fast, light, and easy to navigate ### Effortless nested repeater fields You can nest and stack content structures. It’s one of the few tools where complex schemas don’t instantly become a crime scene. ### Real-time content branching Branching lets teams experiment, test ideas, and push updates without breaking production. Preview changes instantly, merge when ready, panic never. ### Ready-to-use GraphQL integration BaseHub ships with clean, auto-generated GraphQL APIs, so developers don’t waste hours wiring resolvers or schema stitching. Query, fetch, and ship. ### Typesafe SDK support You get fully typed responses out of the box, which means fewer runtime surprises and a smoother dev experience. Your IDE becomes your safety net. ### Collaborative team workflows Teams can work together without stepping on each other’s toes, with clean approval flows and role-based editing. It’s built for fast-moving content teams. ## Key pain points BaseHub is one of those platforms that feels like it was built by a developer, for a developer, and at no point did anyone ask, "Won't marketers need to be able to edit on the go?" Once you’re inside, it’s tables inside tables inside tables, like a Russian doll but somehow less fun. And as we’ve said before, we genuinely appreciate good engineering… but BaseHub often feels like someone shipped the database schema and called it a CMS. BaseHub is painful to use, in our opinion. Because the platform is still young, features sometimes glitch, real-time collaboration hiccups, and localization or migration workflows can get messy fast. Documentation gaps and unpredictable branching only add to the frustration. If you're determined to build on BaseHub, we can walk you through the safest path… or at least help you avoid the inevitable "why is this breaking again?" moments. ### Occasional feature glitches New features sometimes ship a bit wobbly, so expect the occasional "why is this suddenly broken?" moment. ### Not yet enterprise-ready It’s great for small teams, but big orgs will hit walls fast. Workflow maturity and stability just aren’t there yet. ### Limited third-party integrations If you rely on a rich ecosystem, BaseHub won’t meet you halfway. You’ll be wiring a lot of things yourself. ### Localization support gaps Multi-region content teams will feel the pain quickly as language handling still needs serious tightening. ### API rate limiting constraints Push it too hard and you’ll hit rate limits faster than you expect, which can block larger deployments. ### Sporadic stability issues Real-time collaboration and branching can hiccup under pressure, making scaling workflows frustrating. ### No self-hosting option BaseHub is SaaS-only. There is no self-hosting path or on-premise deployment. Your content lives on their infrastructure. ## Target: 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. ## Frequently asked questions ### How do we migrate content out of BaseHub? BaseHub exposes content through its GraphQL API, so extraction means writing queries to pull your content tree and transforming the responses into your target CMS format. The nested repeater structure can make this tricky since deeply nested content needs to be flattened or re-mapped depending on where you're going. Media assets need to be downloaded and re-uploaded separately. For a typical project with moderate content volume, we budget 2 to 4 weeks for the full migration. ### Why do teams leave BaseHub? BaseHub ships fast but stability concerns persist. Feature glitches in production, limited third-party integrations, and an interface that feels more like a database browser than a CMS remain friction points. Localization support is weak, API rate limits bite on high-traffic sites, and real-time collaboration can still hiccup under pressure. Teams needing enterprise-grade reliability often outgrow BaseHub within 6 to 12 months. ### Is BaseHub stable enough for production sites? For small marketing sites and developer portfolios, BaseHub works fine. For anything with real traffic, multiple editors, or complex content workflows, we'd urge caution. The platform ships features quickly but stability doesn't always keep pace. We've seen branching break under pressure and collaboration features hiccup at inconvenient moments. If your business depends on publishing uptime, you want a CMS with a longer track record of production reliability.