Decap CMS

Decap CMS is a free, open-source editor for content held in Git repositories. It suits publishers and developers building static or Jamstack sites who want editorial tools without giving up repository ownership. Choose it for that control and flexibility; look elsewhere if you want hosting, backend, and authentication managed for you.

Overview

Decap CMS adds a web-based editing layer to Git-backed sites rather than moving content into a separate hosted system. Contributors work with structured fields, rich text, and live preview, while teams can move content through draft, review, and publish statuses. Git history and branch workflows keep changes tied to the repository, and deployment checks connect publishing to the site's delivery process.

The model is a strong fit for teams already comfortable building and operating static-site infrastructure. Collections, nested structures, relation fields, and slug rules let developers shape the content model; custom widgets, editor components, and plugins can extend the editing experience. That freedom comes with setup and maintenance work: the free, MIT-licensed CMS is self-hosted, and users provide their own backend and authentication.

Key features

Repository-centered publishing

Backends include GitHub, GitLab, Gitea, Bitbucket, Azure, Git Gateway, proxy, and test options. This range gives teams room to fit the CMS to an existing Git workflow, rather than requiring one repository provider. Decap CMS is designed for static and Jamstack projects, including Hugo, Next.js, Gatsby, and Jekyll workflows; it is less suited to organizations seeking a turnkey CMS outside that architecture.

Media and administration

A built-in media library handles assets, with integrations for Cloudinary, Uploadcare, or custom services. Decap Turbo adds features such as site variables and secrets on Pro; secret-marked variables are encrypted at rest. Turbo deploy notifications currently work for GitHub-hosted sites, with GitLab support on the roadmap, so GitLab teams should not choose the paid tier on the assumption that notifications already cover their hosting setup.

Pricing

The Free plan costs nothing and remains free forever. It covers one site and one seat, with Faster CMS, Git host request shielding, an activity log, deploy notifications, and community support. That is a useful no-cost starting point for an individual or a small project, but the one-seat and one-site limits make it a narrow fit for a growing team.

Pro costs €19 a month, billed monthly, and includes one site and five seats. Additional sites cost €10/site/month and additional seats €6/seat/month, so a multi-site team should account for those recurring charges. Pro adds site variables and secrets and an S3-compatible media library. Custom roles and priority support are add-ons, not included features; the plan's capacity and options suit teams that need more than the free allowance but do not require enterprise access controls.

Enterprise has custom pricing and offers fair-use unlimited sites and seats, custom or granular roles, SSO/SAML, dedicated support, and an SLA. It is the relevant tier for organizations that need those controls and service commitments. Decap CMS also offers a 14-day trial; no trial-specific terms are stated. The underlying open-source CMS remains free and self-hosted, so paid plans are best understood as Decap Turbo options rather than a requirement to use the core editor.

Platforms

Decap CMS is available as a web editor and is self-hosted. Its hosting and deployment model supports both user-operated infrastructure and deployment workflows, but users of the free CMS must bring the backend and authentication themselves. This distinction matters: web access does not make it a managed service.

Who it's for

Decap CMS is for publishers, editors, and developers who want non-technical contributors to edit Git-stored content while the team retains repository ownership. It works best when developers can configure the backend, authentication, content model, and site workflow. Teams that want a hosted CMS with infrastructure included, or that need GitLab deploy notifications today, have reason to consider another option.

Pros and cons

Pro: Content, version history, and branch workflows remain in the repository, which suits teams prioritizing ownership and Git-based delivery.

Pro: Structured editing, rich text, live preview, and draft-to-publish statuses give contributors an editorial interface without requiring them to edit files directly.

Pro: Multiple Git backends, media integrations, and extensibility let developers adapt the CMS to different repository and content-model needs.

Con: Self-hosting and supplying authentication and a backend place infrastructure responsibility on the user.

Con: Free is limited to one site and one seat; Pro's additional sites and seats carry monthly charges, and custom roles and priority support cost extra.

Con: Turbo deploy notifications currently support GitHub-hosted sites, leaving GitLab users waiting for planned support.

Alternatives

Consider Kiln if a free, open-source self-hosted option appeals and you are willing to run its worker and GitHub App and provide the site host. Siteleaf is worth comparing if its Developer plan's 100 MB, 100-page limits, public GitHub repositories, API allowance, and community support fit your project. Choose Dhub if its free Hobby plan's single user, personal GitHub accounts, public repositories, and default-branch editing are sufficient.

Mattrbld is another option to compare. Outstatic may suit a self-hosted project seeking unlimited repositories, GitHub login, and its full CMS features on a free plan. Consider Quiqr if a free, open-source option across desktop and web platforms better fits your setup. deco CMS is also an open-source, self-hostable CMS with a free core.

Netlify is an alternative to consider if its web and API platform and free allowance of 300 credits per month, one concurrent build, and one team owner suit your needs.

Browse more options in Git-Based CMS and Content Management Systems.

Verdict

Choose Decap CMS if your team wants an editorial interface for Git-backed static-site content and has the developers to own its backend, authentication, and hosting. Repository control, flexible content modeling, and a free core are compelling reasons to adopt it; the infrastructure burden and limited free capacity are the principal reasons to look elsewhere.