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 Sitecore
We are the Tina CMS to Sitecore 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 Sitecore
Key advantages
Sitecore is a full digital experience platform, not just a CMS. The personalisation engine, marketing automation, and XP analytics stack up well against Adobe Experience Manager, and for some Fortune 500s running global campaigns across dozens of channels, that's the right fit. Content management, email, testing, and customer data all live in one place, so large marketing teams don't have to stitch together five tools to run a campaign.
Its .NET foundation is the other draw for enterprises already deep in the Microsoft ecosystem. The platform scales, the personalisation actually works when properly configured, and the integration story with Azure, Dynamics, and Power BI is genuinely solid.
That said, we rarely recommend it outside the Fortune 500. If you're an enterprise already on Sitecore and wondering whether to stay or move, get in touch, we can give you an honest read.
Common questions
Tina CMS to Sitecore migration FAQs
Answers to the most common questions about Tina CMS to Sitecore 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.
How much does Sitecore cost?
Sitecore doesn't publish pricing, but based on what we've seen across client projects, expect to pay six figures annually. Licensing alone typically starts around $40,000 to $65,000 per year for a basic XM setup, and jumps well past $100,000 once you add XP or XC modules. Factor in implementation (often $150,000 to $500,000+), hosting, and the specialised developers you'll need on retainer. For mid-sized companies, the total cost of ownership over three years can easily exceed $500,000. We've helped teams migrate off Sitecore and cut their annual platform spend by 60-80%.
How hard is it to migrate away from Sitecore?
It depends on how deep you are. A basic Sitecore XM site with standard content types can be migrated in 8-12 weeks. If you're using Sitecore's personalisation engine, custom pipelines, or XP analytics heavily, the timeline stretches to 3-6 months. The biggest pain points are content extraction (Sitecore stores content in a tree structure that doesn't map cleanly to other systems) and rebuilding any custom .NET components in a modern stack. Our team typically runs the migration in phases, starting with content export and schema mapping before touching the frontend.
Is Sitecore worth it for mid-sized companies?
No, not in most cases. Sitecore was built for large enterprises with dedicated IT teams and six-figure CMS budgets. Mid-sized companies consistently overpay for features they never use. The personalisation engine sits idle, the marketing automation goes untouched, and the team ends up using it as a glorified page editor. A headless CMS paired with a modern frontend framework gives you better performance, lower costs, and faster development cycles. We've moved multiple mid-sized companies off Sitecore onto leaner stacks and the feedback is always the same: they wish they'd done it sooner.
What are the best Sitecore alternatives for enterprise teams?
It depends on what you actually use Sitecore for. If you need structured content with real-time collaboration and flexible APIs, Sanity is our go-to recommendation. If your team is locked into the Adobe ecosystem, AEM is the obvious (expensive) alternative. For teams that want enterprise workflow controls without the Sitecore price tag, Contentful or Hygraph are worth evaluating. The key question is whether you genuinely need a monolithic DXP or whether a composable stack of best-in-class tools would serve you better. In our experience, composable wins almost every time.
Get in touch
Fill out the form below and we'll get back to you
