Case Study
View Case StudyTray.ai
Migrating hundreds of thousands of pages, re-platforming and extending for the leading composable AI integration platform
From Tina CMS to Builder.io
We are the Tina CMS to Builder.io migration experts
Last verified:
Challenges with Tina CMS
Key pain points
Tina's biggest limitation is that it's fundamentally tied to the React ecosystem. If you want visual editing, you need a React-based framework like Next.js. Basic content editing works with Astro, Hugo, SvelteKit, and others, but the flagship visual experience is React-only. There's been talk of Vue support for years, but nothing has materialised. This is a hard blocker for agencies like us that work across different tech stacks. The platform has also had a notable history: SSW acquired the project in May 2024, and a security breach in late 2024 involved compromised AWS keys via the CI/CD pipeline. These events, combined with the relatively small community, are worth weighing when evaluating Tina for long-term enterprise projects.
On the practical side, developers report frustrating instability in the dev environment. The admin interface can break without any changes to your codebase because it depends on externally loaded assets that update independently. Error handling is weak — forms fail to save silently, and the GraphQL layer doesn't surface errors cleanly. Self-hosting removes the TinaCloud dependency but comes with its own gaps: no search functionality, no Git LFS support, and reference fields can timeout on large collections.
The editing experience, while impressive in demos, can feel fragile in production. Multiple developers have reported losing work in the editor, and features like branch-based editing are locked behind paid tiers. For agencies managing multiple client projects, the React-only constraint and relatively small community (compared to Sanity, Strapi, or Contentful) mean fewer resources, fewer integrations, and more time spent solving problems yourself.
Visual editing limited to React
TinaCMS supports many frameworks including Astro, Hugo, Jekyll, SvelteKit, and Nuxt for basic content editing. However, the visual/inline editing experience, which is Tina's main selling point, only works with React-based frameworks like Next.js.
Unstable development environment
The dev server can break unpredictably because it loads external assets that change independently of your codebase. This makes local development feel unreliable and hard to debug.
Poor error handling and silent failures
Forms can fail to save without any visual indicator, and GraphQL errors aren't surfaced clearly. Losing work without warning is a real risk, especially for content editors.
Branch editing requires paid tier
Multi-branch support isn't available out of the box — it's locked behind the paid editorial workflow feature. You can't test content changes in deploy previews without paying up.
Self-hosting gaps
The self-hosted backend lacks search functionality, Git LFS support, and pagination on reference fields. Large collections can cause network timeouts.
Small ecosystem
Compared to established players like Sanity or Contentful, Tina has a smaller community and fewer plugins. Since the SSW acquisition in May 2024, the project has been actively maintained with regular releases, but the ecosystem is still catching up.
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
Tina CMS to Builder.io migration FAQs
Answers to the most common questions about Tina CMS to Builder.io migration
How do we migrate content out of Tina CMS?
Tina stores content as markdown and MDX files in your Git repository, which makes extraction the easiest part of any CMS migration we do. Your content is already files on disk. The work is in transforming those markdown files into the structured format your new CMS expects. Rich text blocks, custom components embedded in MDX, and frontmatter fields all need mapping. For a blog or docs site with 100 to 500 pages, we typically complete the migration in 2 to 4 weeks.
Why are teams leaving Tina CMS?
Three issues come up repeatedly. First, the React-only constraint for visual editing blocks teams that want to use Astro, SvelteKit, or other frameworks. Second, the development environment is unstable. The admin interface loads external assets that update independently of your codebase, so it can break without you changing anything. Third, the 2024 security breach involving compromised AWS keys shook confidence in the platform's operational maturity. Teams with enterprise compliance requirements found that hard to overlook.
Is it worth self-hosting Tina instead of migrating away?
Self-hosting removes the TinaCloud dependency, but it introduces its own gaps. There's no search functionality, no Git LFS support, and reference fields timeout on large collections. If you're already frustrated with Tina's instability, self-hosting adds more operational burden rather than solving the root problems. We've found that teams considering self-hosted Tina are usually better served by migrating to a platform with proper managed hosting and a more mature editorial experience.
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
