Case Study
View Case StudyTray.ai
Migrating hundreds of thousands of pages, re-platforming and extending for the leading composable AI integration platform
From Ghost to BaseHub
We are the Ghost to BaseHub migration experts
Last verified:
Challenges with Ghost
Key pain points
Ghost is great until you need it to do anything more than “post blog, send newsletter, and beg readers for $5/month.” The moment you step outside that happy path, the whole thing starts feeling painfully bare-bones. There’s no real visual builder, no serious content modeling, and the plugin ecosystem is basically “good luck, build it yourself.”
Hosted plans get expensive fast once memberships grow, and self-hosting turns into a weekend-killing DevOps hobby nobody asked for. If you need anything beyond a clean blog with a paywall, Ghost will politely tap out and tell you to write less ambitious content.
Blogging-centric feature set
Ghost is brilliant for blogs… and very “meh” for anything else. If you need complex content models, workflows, or enterprise-level flexibility, you’ll hit a wall quickly.
Sparse plugin marketplace
There’s no real ecosystem to lean on. Anything outside the basics usually means rolling up your sleeves and writing code yourself.
No visual page builder
If you were hoping to drag, drop, and magically design pages, Ghost politely says “no.” Everything beyond basic layouts needs theme edits.
Custom coding required
Even simple enhancements often require Handlebars or API work. Non-technical teams will run out of road fast.
Limited content modeling
You get posts and pages, that’s pretty much the deal. Anything beyond that is a workaround, not a first-class feature.
Lacks multi-site support
Running multiple sites under one instance isn’t Ghost’s thing. If you’re scaling across regions or brands, you’ll feel boxed in.
Benefits of BaseHub
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 seamless GraphQL integration 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
If you can use Notion, you can get content into BaseHub without begging a developer for help. It is light, fast 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.
Common questions
Ghost to BaseHub migration FAQs
Answers to the most common questions about Ghost to BaseHub migration
How much does Ghost CMS really cost beyond the "free" open source version?
Ghost is free to self-host, but "free" is misleading. You'll need a VPS ($5-$20/month minimum), someone to handle server maintenance, security updates, SSL certificates, and backups. That's either your time or a developer's hourly rate. Realistically, self-hosted Ghost costs $50-$200/month in labour and infrastructure for a small team. Ghost's managed hosting (Ghost Pro) starts at $9/month for the Starter plan (500 members), jumps to $25/month for Creator (1,000 members), and scales to $199/month for the Business tier. Once your membership list grows past a few thousand, costs climb fast. We've seen publishers hit $300+/month on Ghost Pro before questioning whether the platform still made sense for them.
Does Ghost need a developer to maintain it?
If you're self-hosting, yes. Ghost runs on Node.js and requires regular updates, database maintenance (MySQL), and server monitoring. Major version upgrades (Ghost 4 to 5, for example) can break themes and integrations, and someone technical needs to handle those. On Ghost Pro, maintenance is handled for you, but customisation still requires a developer. Custom themes use Handlebars templating, and anything beyond basic styling means editing theme files and redeploying. If your team is purely non-technical and you want to go beyond Ghost's default themes, you'll need developer support on an ongoing basis.
When should you migrate away from Ghost?
Ghost hits its ceiling when you need more than blog posts and newsletters. If you're trying to build landing pages, manage structured content across multiple page types, run an ecommerce store, or handle multi-language content, Ghost wasn't designed for any of that. We've migrated publishers off Ghost when they outgrew the "blog plus newsletter" model and needed a real content platform. The migration itself is painless. Ghost's JSON API makes content extraction simple, and posts map cleanly to markdown. The typical timeline is 4-6 weeks to move content into a headless CMS and rebuild the frontend.
Can Ghost handle a site with more than just a blog?
Barely. Ghost gives you two content types, posts and pages, and that's it. There's no custom content modelling, no relational fields, no structured data beyond tags and authors. You can hack together something with custom routes and internal tags, but it's brittle and hard to maintain. If you need case studies, service pages, team directories, or any structured content beyond articles, you're fighting the platform. Ghost is excellent at what it does. It just doesn't do very much. For sites that need a blog alongside other content types, a headless CMS gives you the flexibility Ghost intentionally leaves out.
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 is still a young platform, and teams hit its limits as projects grow. The most common complaints we hear are feature glitches in production, limited third-party integrations, and an interface that feels more like a database browser than a CMS. Localization support is weak, API rate limits bite harder than expected on high-traffic sites, and real-time collaboration can hiccup under pressure. Teams that need 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.
Get in touch
Fill out the form below and we'll get back to you
