# Kontent.ai to BaseHub migration > How to migrate from Kontent.ai to BaseHub, with a side-by-side comparison and FAQs. --- ## Source: Kontent.ai - **Type:** headless - **Official site:** https://kontent.ai - **Pricing:** https://kontent.ai/pricing - **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-03 ## Key advantages Calling your CMS "Kontent dot ai" is a brilliant way to convince people you’ve built an AI-powered future. And to be fair, the platform does have a clean editor, strong workflow tools, and a respectable multi-channel setup. It's perfect for the kind of company that has more infosec members than it does have devs. But calling yourself an AI platform doesn’t mean you’re built like one. Real AI-driven CMS platforms start at the foundation with structured content, flexible modeling, real-time indexing, and an architecture that doesn’t panic the moment you try something complex. Sanity doesn’t even market itself as "AI-first," but it’s been ahead of the curve for years. They shipped an embedding index before "AI CMS" was a pitch deck buzzword. We even built one of the first AI search tools on top of it. So yes, Kontent.ai is great. If you want a polished interface and enterprise workflows, go for it. And if you’re dead-set on building your website there, talk to us first. We’ll walk you through it and maybe even find a better way before you spend six months discovering the limits yourself. ### Intuitive content management You shouldn’t need a week of onboarding to publish a paragraph. Kontent.ai nails this with a clean interface that doesn’t punish you for being a marketer instead of a developer. ### Flexible content modeling Build content the way your brain works. Modular, structured, reusable. No dev intervention every time marketing decides "we need one more field." ### Strong API-first architecture The APIs are predictable, well-documented, and don’t require wild workarounds. Everything connects the way it should and developers stay happy too. ### Tech stack integration React, Vue, Angular, or whatever framework you’re obsessed with this week, Kontent.ai plays nice with all of them and keeps deployments smooth. ### Advanced image transformations You can resize, crop, and optimize visuals without leaving the CMS. Think of it as an in-house designer that doesn’t complain about aspect ratios. ### Real-time collaboration Writers, editors, and developers can work together without stepping on each other’s commits. Instant updates, fewer Slack messages, and zero "who overwrote my draft?" moments. ## Key pain points We've always been known to talk trash about WordPress, Framer and especially Prismic. It's fun and theraputic but truth be told Kontent.ai deserves it's fair share of aggro. Pricing is hidden behind "book a demo" and their vague "price calculator". Basic features require developer elbow grease, and replacing a single image gives you a brand-new URL like it’s 2009. At scale, the API rate limits and bare-bones taxonomy start to feel less "enterprise" and more "please slow down, you’re scaring the CMS." If you’re absolutely set on using Kontent.ai, give us a shout. We’ll try to make it work… or find you something that won’t make your content team cry into their spreadsheets. ### Hidden pricing model Kontent.ai loves a "contact sales" button. Great if you're an enterprise with a procurement department, not so great if you're just trying to budget a project. Until you get a quote, you’re basically guessing. ### Complex initial setup requirements The platform is polished, but the setup isn’t plug-and-play. Getting projects wired correctly, especially when it comes to multi-channel setup, usually requires a developer, documentation, and a quiet room to scream into. ### Missing out-of-box preview system Unlike most modern CMS platforms, there's no native live preview. You have to build a custom preview pipeline, which adds effort, cost, and another item to the dev team’s already depressing backlog. ### Asset replacement URL issues Swap an image or file, and Kontent.ai generates a new URL, which means link rot and cleanup duties no one asked for. Publishing teams feel this pain the fastest. ### API rate limiting constraints API-first is great until you hit the rate limit. 100 requests per second is fine for small sites, but high-traffic apps need careful caching or extra infrastructure to avoid bottlenecks ### Limited Management API coverage The Management API doesn’t expose every UI action, so automation hits a ceiling. Some tasks still require clicking through the interface, which defeats half the point of going headless. ## Target: 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. ## Frequently asked questions ### What happens to image URLs when you replace assets in Kontent.ai? This is a genuine pain point. Every time you replace an image or file in Kontent.ai, the platform generates a completely new URL. That means any hardcoded references, cached versions, or external links to the old asset break instantly. For content teams publishing at scale, this creates a maintenance burden. You need to update every place the old URL was referenced, or accept broken images. Most CMS platforms handle asset replacement by keeping the same URL and invalidating the cache. Kontent.ai's approach feels like an oversight that hasn't been fixed. If you're managing hundreds of assets, this adds real friction to daily editorial work. ### What's involved in migrating away from Kontent.ai? The content extraction itself is clean. Kontent.ai's Delivery API and Management API let you pull content items and assets programmatically. The challenges are schema translation and workflow replication. Kontent.ai's content types map to their own structure, and converting those to another CMS's schema requires careful field-by-field mapping, especially for linked items and modular content. If you've built custom workflow states and approval chains, those need to be recreated in the target platform. Plan for 6-10 weeks depending on the number of content types, locales, and workflow complexity. The API rate limit of 100 requests per second can also slow down bulk exports for large content libraries.