# Payload to Kontent.ai migration > How to migrate from Payload to Kontent.ai, with a side-by-side comparison and FAQs. --- ## Source: Payload - **Type:** headless - **Official site:** https://payloadcms.com - **Pricing:** https://payloadcms.com/enterprise - **Last reviewed:** 2026-07-28 ## Key advantages Payload is genuinely strong tech. It’s fast, open-source, developer-first, and perfect if you want full control over your content model. The Next.js integration is smooth, the admin UI is clean, and it’s one of the more flexible modern CMS options if your team prefers to build things exactly the way you want them. Just know that if you want actual features like visual editing, Vercel Blob storage, image handling, etc, you’ll be paying extra for the privilege. If you’re considering Payload or thinking about migrating into (or out of) it, reach out to us. We can help you figure out whether it’s the right stack or guide you toward a cleaner, saner (Sanity) setup. ### Integration with Next.js applications Payload works natively with Next.js, giving you clean data fetching and a smooth development flow. It removes the usual CMS friction so you can build fast, modern frontends without hacks. ### Fully customizable Everything is configured in code, which means you can tailor the CMS to your exact use case. You define the logic, workflows, and behaviour. ### Supports custom data models You can design any content structure your project needs, from simple documents to complex relational models. This gives you full control over how content is organised and delivered. ### Intuitive admin UI Payload’s admin panel is simple, clean, and fast. Editors can create, update, and manage content without training or digging through confusing menus. ### Custom plugins and APIs You can extend Payload however you like. Build custom fields, integrate external services, or add your own API routes. Perfect for teams that need deeper project-specific functionality. ### Built-in authentication Payload comes with user auth, roles, and access control baked in. No external auth service needed, and you can customise permissions to match your editorial workflow. ## Key pain points Payload’s biggest issue is how quickly it hands you the responsibility baton. Because it leans so heavily on self-hosting, you’re suddenly running databases, managing infra, dealing with scaling, and debugging auth quirks at 11 pm. And since the platform is still maturing, updates can feel unpredictable, and the surrounding ecosystem isn’t quite deep enough yet to soften the landing when something breaks. The recent Figma acquisition didn’t help either. Support has felt a bit lighter, and some priorities clearly shifted, alongside pricing. Payload feels flexible on day one, the moment your project grows you’re either engineering around gaps or paying more than expected. If you're debating whether Payload fits the future of your stack (or you’re already feeling the cracks), we’re always happy to help you plan a cleaner path or a migration that won’t come back to bite you. ### Steep learning curve Payload’s code-first approach means you need solid dev experience to use it effectively. Non-technical teams will struggle, and onboarding takes longer compared to more guided CMSs. ### Smaller ecosystem of plugins There aren’t many ready-made extensions, so you’ll end up building features yourself. This adds development time and increases long-term maintenance. ### Potential performance overhead Because it’s a full JavaScript backend, Payload can get resource-heavy under high traffic. You’ll need to optimise your server setup and monitor performance more closely. ### Gaps in documentation The docs are improving, but there are still missing pieces and unclear sections. New users often have to dig through GitHub issues to find answers. ### Small community The community is growing but still small, so there’s less shared knowledge, fewer tutorials, and slower troubleshooting compared to bigger CMS ecosystems. ### Requires separate hosting Payload doesn’t come with built-in hosting, so you’re responsible for setting up and managing your server. That adds extra cost, extra setup, and extra operational overhead. ## Target: 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. ## Frequently asked questions ### How hard is it to migrate away from Payload CMS? Payload stores content in MongoDB or Postgres, so extracting your data is straightforward compared to proprietary platforms. The real work is restructuring your content model for the target CMS and rebuilding any custom access control logic you've written. We typically complete Payload migrations in 3 to 6 weeks depending on how much custom backend logic is involved. The code-first nature of Payload means most of the content model is well-documented in your own codebase, which actually makes migration planning easier. ### What are the main reasons teams leave Payload? The most common reasons we hear are infrastructure fatigue and ecosystem gaps. Payload requires you to manage your own database, hosting, auth, and scaling. Teams that chose Payload for its developer flexibility eventually realise they're spending more time on DevOps than on content features. The Figma acquisition in 2025 also shifted priorities. Payload paused new Cloud project deployments afterward (existing projects keep running), and some teams feel the platform's direction became less predictable. Visual editing and live preview still require significant custom engineering compared to platforms that ship them natively. ### What does a Payload to Sanity migration cost? For a typical content site with 200 to 1,000 documents, we estimate 4 to 6 weeks of work. The bulk of effort goes into rebuilding the admin experience and frontend integration, not the data transfer itself. Payload's MongoDB exports are clean, so content migration scripts run reliably. The cost depends heavily on how much custom auth logic and access control you've built, since that needs to be rebuilt in the target platform's permission system. We scope every migration individually after reviewing your Payload config. ### 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. ### How much does Kontent.ai cost? Kontent.ai hides pricing behind a "book a demo" wall, which is never a good sign for budget planning. Based on what we've seen across client engagements, the Developer plan is free but extremely limited (1 user, 2 languages). The Scale plan starts around $1,249/month (billed annually), and Enterprise pricing goes higher depending on API usage, content items, and seats. The real cost is in implementation. Kontent.ai requires upfront developer time to set up content models, build a custom preview pipeline (there's no native live preview), and configure workflows. Budget 4-8 weeks of developer time for initial setup on top of the subscription cost. ### Is Kontent.ai worth it compared to other enterprise headless CMS platforms? Kontent.ai does enterprise content workflows well. The role-based permissions, multi-step approvals, and content scheduling are polished. The API is predictable and well-documented. Where it falls short is flexibility. The content modelling tools are competent but not as powerful as Sanity's, and the lack of a native preview system means your team needs to build and maintain custom preview infrastructure. At similar price points, Contentful offers a larger ecosystem and Sanity offers deeper customisation. We'd recommend Kontent.ai primarily for teams already invested in the Kentico ecosystem or organisations where workflow governance is the top priority over developer experience.