Case study
View case studySlingshot Bio
Roboto converged Slingshot Bio's WordPress and Shopify sites into one headless Shopify build on Next.js and Sanity, instrumented end to end and AI-ready.
From Hygraph to Builder.io
We are the Hygraph to Builder.io migration experts
Last verified:
Challenges with Hygraph
Key pain points
GraphQL-only is the core trade-off. If your team hasn't worked with GraphQL, expect a ramp-up period, and simple projects can end up feeling more complex than they need to be. The UI slows down once your dataset grows, especially with dozens of fields or multiple locales. Localization works, but past ten languages the interface starts to feel like a spreadsheet that lost a fight.
Integrations take more effort if the rest of your stack is REST. There's no REST endpoint, so you'll write adapters or a BFF layer. Pricing is the other thing to plan for. The Growth plan at $199/month includes 1M API operations, and metered overages stack up quickly on a busy site once you cross that line. Enterprise is the only way to unlock SSO, custom roles, and higher locale counts.
If you're unsure whether Hygraph is the right fit, or you're stuck halfway up the learning curve, reach out. We can help you map the cleanest path forward.
You have to really love GraphQL
GraphQL is one of its strongest point but it can be your downfall as well, if your team hasn’t touched GraphQL before, expect a ramp-up period. It’s powerful but definitely not “plug in and go.”
Large dataset performance issues
Once your project grows, the Hygraph UI can start dragging. Big data collections need extra optimization to stay usable.
Interface sluggishness at scale
Heavy models, long lists, and asset-heavy projects can make the dashboard feel slow, especially for editors.
Localization workflow complexity
Managing multiple locales works, but it’s not as intuitive as it looks on paper. Some teams find themselves clicking around more than expected.
Multi-language interface clutter
Multi-language setups work fine, but as soon as you hit double-digit locales, the UI quickly becomes noisy and harder to manage. It’s usable, just not optimised for scale.
REST API integration challenges
If your systems still rely on REST, be prepared for extra engineering. Hygraph is GraphQL-only, so adapters and rework are part of the deal.
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
Hygraph to Builder.io migration FAQs
Answers to the most common questions about Hygraph to Builder.io migration
Is Hygraph easy for non-technical editors to use?
It's decent but not great. Hygraph's editor UI is clean and approachable for basic content updates, but the moment your content model gets complex (nested components, multiple locales, lots of reference fields), editors start feeling overwhelmed. The interface slows down with large datasets, and the GraphQL-native approach means the editorial experience is shaped by developer decisions more than in other headless CMS platforms. We've set up Hygraph for teams where editors managed well after proper onboarding, but it requires more hand-holding than something like Sanity's Studio, which was designed with editorial experience as a first-class priority.
How does Hygraph compare to other headless CMS options?
Hygraph's standout feature is Content Federation, which lets you pull data from external APIs into a unified GraphQL layer. That's genuinely useful if you're aggregating content from multiple sources. Compared to Contentful, Hygraph is cheaper at the lower tiers and more developer-friendly if your team already knows GraphQL. Compared to Sanity, Hygraph offers less flexibility in content modelling and lacks real-time collaboration in the editor. The free tier is generous for small projects. For larger builds, we usually recommend Sanity because the customisation ceiling is much higher and you're not locked into GraphQL as your only query language.
What does Hygraph cost as you scale?
Hygraph's Hobby plan is free with 3 seats, 1,000 content entries, 500K API operations, and 2 locales. The Growth plan is $199/month with 10 seats, 10,000 entries, 1M API operations, and 3 locales. Once you pass those limits, Growth charges automatic overages per block of API operations and per GB of asset traffic, so check the current rate on the pricing page before you sign. Enterprise is custom pricing and goes up to 200 seats, 1M+ entries, 50M+ API operations, and up to 80 locales, with SSO and custom roles on top. The catch is the same as it has always been. High-traffic sites burn through included operations fast, and Content Federation queries count against the limit too. Model your expected API usage before committing.
What are Hygraph's main limitations?
Three things come up on real projects. GraphQL is mandatory. There's no REST endpoint, so a REST-heavy stack means writing adapters or a BFF layer, and a team that hasn't used GraphQL faces a real ramp-up. The editor UI slows down as content grows. Big collections, dozens of fields, and double-digit locale counts make the dashboard sluggish for editors. And the paywall sits in awkward places. SSO, custom roles, and higher locale limits only arrive on Enterprise, so a mid-size team that wants proper access control jumps straight from $199/month to a sales call. None of these are dealbreakers if GraphQL is already your default and your content model stays disciplined, but they catch teams who picked Hygraph for the free tier and grew into the constraints.
Can I migrate from Hygraph to Sanity?
Yes, and we do it regularly. Content extraction is the easy part since everything comes out through GraphQL queries. The bigger jobs are two. First, schema translation. Hygraph's content model maps to GraphQL types, and you rewrite those as Sanity schema definitions, then translate every GraphQL query into GROQ on the frontend. The mapping is mechanical once you've done it a few times, but it touches every page that fetches data. Second, rebuilding any Content Federation layer, because that logic lives inside Hygraph and doesn't export. If you've wired three or four external APIs through federation, you replicate those integrations in your application layer. We typically budget 4 to 8 weeks for a Hygraph to Sanity migration depending on content volume and how much federation you're untangling.
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
Tell us what you're building. We reply within one working day — Jono or someone on the team picks up every message personally.
