Case Study
View Case StudyTray.ai
Migrating hundreds of thousands of pages, re-platforming and extending for the leading composable AI integration platform
From ButterCMS to Builder.io
We are the ButterCMS to Builder.io migration experts
Last verified:
Challenges with ButterCMS
Key pain points
Where ButterCMS starts to show cracks is when projects grow beyond its comfort zone. The content modeling is adequate for straightforward use cases, but it lacks the depth and flexibility of platforms like Sanity or Contentful. Components are only available for pages, not collections or blog posts, which creates frustrating inconsistencies when you're trying to build a cohesive content architecture. The 1,000 content field limit, even on expensive plans, can become a real ceiling for ambitious projects.
The platform's smaller ecosystem is a double-edged sword. While anyone who knows JavaScript can work with the API, you won't find the same depth of community resources, plugins, or third-party integrations that larger platforms offer. Media management is also noticeably behind, with no bulk upload capability and limited asset organisation tools. For agencies managing multiple client sites, these paper cuts add up quickly.
There have also been transparency concerns. In 2024, a DNS incident affected thousands of sites using ButterCMS, but their status page showed no downtime. That kind of communication gap is a red flag for any team relying on a third-party CMS in production. The pricing, while competitive on the surface, can feel steep for smaller teams once you move past the limited free tier, and the jump between plans isn't always proportional to what you get.
Limited content modeling flexibility
Components are only available for pages, not collections or blog posts. This creates awkward workarounds when you need consistent structured content across different content types.
Content field limits on all plans
Even the most expensive plans cap you at 1,000 content fields. For complex, multi-locale projects this ceiling arrives faster than you'd expect.
No bulk media upload
The media library only supports single-file uploads with limited organisation tools. Managing assets across a large site becomes tedious quickly.
Small ecosystem and community
Compared to Contentful or Sanity, the community is tiny. Fewer plugins, fewer tutorials, and fewer developers with direct experience means more problem-solving on your own.
Transparency concerns around incidents
In 2024, a DNS incident reportedly affected sites using ButterCMS, but limited public acknowledgement on their status page raised concerns about transparency. The details are difficult to verify independently.
Pricing jumps between tiers
The free tier is very limited, and paid plans start at $71 per month. For small projects or startups, the cost can be hard to justify when alternatives offer more generous free tiers.
Benefits of Builder.io
Key advantages
Builder.io occupies a unique spot in the headless CMS landscape. It is not really a traditional headless CMS in the way that Sanity or Contentful are. It is more of a visual page builder with headless capabilities bolted on. That distinction matters because if your marketing team needs to ship landing pages fast without filing Jira tickets, Builder.io genuinely delivers on that promise. The drag-and-drop editor is solid, and the ability to register your own React components so that non-developers can compose pages from your actual design system is a legitimately powerful idea.
Where Builder.io really shines is in bridging the gap between developers and marketing teams. You build the components, register them with Builder, and then hand the keys over. Marketers can assemble pages, run A/B tests, and publish without touching code. For agencies like ours, this means fewer "can you just move this banner" tickets and more time spent on actual engineering work.
The framework support is also genuinely broad. Next.js, React, Angular, Vue, Svelte, Qwik, SolidJS, and React Native all have SDKs. If you are running a modern JavaScript stack, Builder.io probably has an integration for it. The AI features they have been shipping are interesting too, though still early days in terms of real production reliability.
Visual drag-and-drop editor
The visual editor lets non-technical users build and edit pages using your actual codebase components. It is one of the better implementations of visual editing in the headless space.
Custom component registration
Developers can register their own React, Vue, or Angular components so editors drag and drop real design system pieces rather than generic blocks.
A/B testing and personalisation built in
Native experimentation tools let marketing teams run split tests and personalise content without needing a separate optimisation platform.
Broad framework support
SDKs for Next.js, React, Angular, Vue, Svelte, Qwik, SolidJS, and React Native mean you are not locked into a single frontend framework.
Marketing team autonomy
Content and marketing teams can ship landing pages, campaign pages, and promotions independently, which frees up developer time for product work.
Structured and visual content modes
Builder.io supports both structured data models for developer-driven content and visual page building for marketing-driven content, giving teams flexibility in how they work.
Common questions
ButterCMS to Builder.io migration FAQs
Answers to the most common questions about ButterCMS to Builder.io migration
How do we migrate content out of ButterCMS?
ButterCMS has a clean REST API, so pulling your content is straightforward. Blog posts, pages, and collections all export as JSON through their API endpoints. The main complexity is restructuring component-based page content for your target CMS, since ButterCMS components only work on pages and don't map 1:1 to other platforms. Media assets need to be downloaded from their CDN and re-uploaded. For a typical blog-heavy site with 200 to 500 posts, we complete the migration in 2 to 4 weeks.
Why do teams leave ButterCMS?
Content modeling flexibility is the top reason. Once projects grow past simple blogs and marketing pages, the 1,000 content field limit becomes a real ceiling. Components being restricted to pages (not collections or blog posts) forces awkward workarounds. Teams also feel the ecosystem gap, with fewer plugins, integrations, and community resources compared to larger platforms. The 2024 DNS incident that wasn't reflected on their status page raised trust concerns for teams running production sites.
What does ButterCMS cost compared to alternatives?
ButterCMS paid plans start at $71/month after a limited free tier. Every plan includes unlimited users, which is genuinely competitive. But the pricing jumps between tiers aren't proportional to what you get, and the content field limits apply even on expensive plans. By comparison, Sanity's free tier includes 3 users with 500K API requests, and you only pay more as your usage scales. For teams outgrowing ButterCMS, the cost of migration typically pays for itself within 6 months through better tooling and fewer workarounds.
Can you migrate from Builder.io without losing your page designs?
Yes, but it takes work. Builder.io's visual editor stores page compositions as JSON that references your registered components. Those component registrations are tightly coupled to Builder's SDK, so you can't just export and import elsewhere. What you can preserve is the design itself. We extract the page structures, map them to equivalent components in the new system, and rebuild the composition layer. The visual output stays the same. Typical timeline is 6-10 weeks depending on how many page types and custom components are involved. The biggest time sink is usually recreating A/B test variants and personalisation rules that lived inside Builder's platform.
What does Builder.io actually cost?
Builder.io's free tier gives you 1 user and basic features, which is enough to evaluate but not to run a real project. The Growth plan starts at $49/month and includes more seats and content types. Beyond that, pricing gets opaque. Teams needing roles, scheduling, and higher API limits are pushed toward custom Enterprise plans that typically start in the $500-$1,000/month range. We've heard from freelancers and small agencies who were caught off guard by charges after exceeding limits on the Growth plan. Builder.io also charges per "impression" on higher tiers, which means your costs scale with traffic in ways that aren't always predictable.
How does Builder.io compare to a traditional headless CMS?
Builder.io is a visual page builder first and a CMS second. That distinction matters. If your primary goal is letting marketing teams build landing pages without developer involvement, Builder.io does that well. If you need structured content modelling, editorial workflows, multi-language support, or content that powers more than just web pages, a traditional headless CMS is a better fit. Builder.io's SDK embeds deeply into your frontend code, which creates vendor lock-in that most headless CMS platforms avoid. We typically recommend Builder.io only when the use case is narrow: high-volume landing page creation for marketing teams. For everything else, a headless CMS with a proper content model gives you more flexibility long-term.
What's the main risk of building on Builder.io?
Vendor lock-in. Builder.io's SDKs are woven into your component rendering layer, which means migrating away requires rebuilding how your pages are composed and rendered. That's not a content migration, it's an architecture migration. With a typical headless CMS, your content is accessible through standard APIs and your frontend is independent. With Builder.io, the two are intertwined. We've worked with teams who spent months extracting themselves from Builder.io because every page template needed to be recreated outside the platform. If you're evaluating Builder.io, go in with eyes open about the exit cost.
Get in touch
Fill out the form below and we'll get back to you
