SilverStripe alternatives: a guide for NZ organisations considering a move

SilverStripe is a New Zealand product, originating in Wellington, and its dominance isn't an accident. It was adopted as part of the New Zealand government's Common Web Platform, which led to widespread uptake across government agencies. From there, adoption spread to non-profits, NGOs, and other organisations. It was open source and it carried an implicit government endorsement.

But SilverStripe was never a mandated government standard. It was one option within a shared platform. But the perception that it was an approved or preferred choice drove a lot of adoption decisions, particularly among organisations that looked to government for guidance on technology.

The other argument for SilverStripe was a practical one: New Zealand's small market meant a limited pool of web developers. Having a locally popular platform meant there were always developers available who knew it. This was a genuine concern at the time.

A lot of good websites have been built on SilverStripe, and a lot of good developers have built careers around it. The model it was based on (open-source PHP, community-maintained) had real merits when it was established.

But the web has changed significantly, and many organisations are finding that what made sense ten years ago no longer fits how they need to operate today.

We work with a lot of SilverStripe sites. We maintain them, fix them, and build on them. That experience is exactly why clients come to us when they're ready to explore other options. The same issues come up repeatedly.

The biggest shift in web technology over the past decade is the move toward headless CMS platforms and JAMstack architecture. These aren't niche trends. They represent where mainstream web development has landed. The tools, the talent, and the ecosystem are all here. Understanding these terms helps explain why the alternatives look so different from SilverStripe.

Headless CMS

A traditional CMS like SilverStripe manages both your content and how it's displayed. A headless CMS manages your content only, and stores, organises, and delivers content through an API. The front-end (what visitors see) is built separately, using modern web frameworks.

This separation is the key architectural difference, and it's what unlocks most of the benefits.

JAMstack

JAMstack (JavaScript, APIs, Markup) is an approach to building websites where pages are pre-built and served as static files from a CDN, rather than generated on a server every time someone visits. The result is faster load times, better security (no server to attack), and dramatically lower hosting costs.

Dynamic features like forms, search, and member areas are handled through APIs and serverless functions rather than a monolithic server application.

Component-driven development

Modern sites are built from reusable components: a hero banner, a content block, a card grid, a call-to-action, a testimonial carousel. These components are designed once and then made available in the CMS for editors to assemble pages from.

This means editors can build new pages and layouts without developer help, using tested, on-brand building blocks. It also means new components can be added incrementally, rather than requiring a full rebuild.

Headless CMS platforms

The most common alternative to SilverStripe is a headless CMS. There are several good options on the market: DatoCMS, Contentful, Sanity, Storyblok, Payload, and others. They differ in details (pricing models, editor interface design, developer tooling, hosting approach) but the core offering is broadly similar. All of them provide structured content management, an API for delivering content to your front-end, modern editing interfaces, and media management.

This is one of the most important differences from a monolithic platform like SilverStripe. With SilverStripe, the CMS choice is a major architectural decision that affects everything: your hosting, your front-end, your development workflow, your costs. With a headless CMS, the content management layer is separate from the rest of the site. If you ever wanted to change CMS, you could do so without rebuilding your website. The stakes of the CMS decision are lower, because you're not locked in.

We've built with several headless CMS platforms and recommend the right one based on each organisation's needs — their content complexity, team size, budget, and how much control they want over their infrastructure. The right choice depends on your situation, and we're happy to talk through the options.

What all these platforms share, and what matters more than the differences between them:

• A modern, intuitive editing interface that non-technical editors can use confidently
• Structured content modelling, so your content is organised and reusable rather than locked into page templates
• No server to manage, no PHP to update, no database to maintain
• Built-in media management and image processing
• Content delivered via API, meaning your front-end can be built with whatever technology makes sense

Payload CMS

Worth mentioning separately because it takes a different approach. Payload is an open-source headless CMS built on Node.js. It appeals to organisations that want full control over their infrastructure and data, with no SaaS fees. The tradeoff is that hosting sits with you or your agency rather than a managed service, which gives you more flexibility but means infrastructure is part of the conversation. For organisations with the right technical support, it's a strong option that combines the benefits of headless architecture with full ownership of the platform.

Umbraco

Also worth mentioning for organisations drawn to the Microsoft ecosystem. Umbraco is a .NET-based CMS that is mature, well-supported, and backed by a large community. For organisations already running Microsoft infrastructure, or where IT teams prefer the familiarity of .NET, it can be a natural fit.

Umbraco is a solid option, but it's not one we work with. Our stack is JavaScript-based (React, Next.js) and we pair it with headless CMS platforms. If Umbraco interests you, there are good agencies in New Zealand that specialise in it. We're happy to point you in the right direction.

A note on WordPress and Drupal

WordPress and Drupal are both open-source CMS platforms and are worth addressing because they sometimes come up as alternatives. Both suffer from many of the same structural drawbacks as SilverStripe: ongoing server maintenance, PHP version management, security patching, plugin compatibility issues, and the general burden of keeping a self-hosted open-source application current.

WordPress is by far the most widely used CMS in the world, but that popularity comes with significant downsides. It is a frequent target for security exploits, its plugin ecosystem introduces reliability and maintenance risks, and the gap between what WordPress promises as an editing experience and what it actually delivers on a customised site is often considerable. For organisations that are already dealing with the costs and frustrations of an open-source PHP platform, moving to WordPress is a lateral move at best.

Drupal is a more serious platform, particularly for large and complex sites. It is widely used by government agencies in Australia, where we have seen it work well. But Drupal projects tend to require significant budget, both upfront and ongoing. It is a powerful tool for organisations that have the resources to invest in it properly. For most New Zealand non-profits and NGOs, the budget required to run Drupal well is difficult to justify when headless alternatives deliver comparable results at lower ongoing cost.

Switching CMS platforms sounds like a major undertaking, and it can be if you approach it as a full redesign. But it doesn't have to be.

A replatform is different from a redesign. The goal is to move your existing site (your content, your design, your brand) onto a new foundation. The website your visitors see can look and feel the same. What changes is the engine underneath.

This process is significantly less expensive than a full redesign because you're not starting from scratch on design, content strategy, or information architecture. You're keeping what works and replacing what doesn't.

A typical replatform process:

Replatforming has an upfront cost, but for most organisations it pays for itself within one to three years through lower ongoing expenses. We've written a detailed breakdown of where the money goes and what drives costs up or down (see below).

Where the savings come from:

• Hosting. JAMstack sites served from a CDN cost a fraction of running a dedicated server for SilverStripe.
• Maintenance. No server OS patching, no PHP upgrades, no database maintenance, no framework security updates.
• Changes and improvements. Component-driven architecture means new features and pages cost less to build and often don't require a developer at all.
• Editor time. A better CMS interface means your team spends less time fighting the tools and more time on the work that matters.

When the ROI is strongest:

• You're already planning significant work on your current site (you're going to spend the money either way)
• You've been told there's technical debt that needs addressing
• Your annual maintenance costs are more than $10,000
• You have multiple content editors who use the site regularly

We've built and maintained SilverStripe sites for years, and we've completed numerous replatforms moving organisations onto modern architecture. That volume of experience has shaped how we approach these projects in ways that matter for the outcome.

See further readings that might be of interest to you.

Website replatforming - a general guide on replatforming

What is a website replatform and when does it make sense? — a plain-language explainer on replatforming vs redesign.

What does a website replatform actually cost? — a breakdown of where the money goes and what drives costs up or down.

Our replatform estimator gives you a ballpark cost and payback estimate based on your website. Submit your URL, answer a few questions, and we'll show you what a move could look like.

Grab a slot with Tim. Book a call.