The documentation was easy to read, but it was hard to find a specific article. When we were searching for a specific capability, I didn't know how to start the search or where the starting point was. I do believe some AI tools in documentation would be helpful. I've seen many other CMS tools such as SAP Commerce built-in CMS, which is called SmartEdit. Contentstack is much more complex and advanced technology. I think there are still some UI improvements which can be done to simplify the work. I can give an example of Contentful, which is a little bit more user-friendly from a UI perspective. However, this is a solid product.
I would suggest increasing the developer-friendly documentation rather than just having a great product. The documentation is not developer-friendly, and the content is not so vivid and it is not made specific for the developers. There is an initial lot of handholding required. We are more worried about the pricing. For example, somebody who is a tech person trying to integrate based on the events finds it a little bit more not so accessible. It is not so accessible for a person who is doing it for the first time. I gave it to my intern and it just took him a lot more time than it took an experienced engineer. Probably the flow has not been right in terms of the documentation to cater to multiple developers. I would suggest increasing the absolute flow of the documentation which caters to the developers first because we first use this tool rather than the marketers using it. For a marketer, there should be quick access to the quick links. I think the access to the links and the generation of the links based on the events and other aspects requires documentation and support. Contentstack can be improved by enhancing developer documentation. Some support is needed in terms of integration, with iframes being rightly available on the portal rather than a developer going and figuring it out through the tokens and other aspects. Another thing is a code snippet directly available on app.contentstack.com rather than a developer creating it through VS Code. The integration flow is something where they have missed out. The sign-up flow needs improvement as well.
There are definitely some improvements needed in the documentation part to make it easier for developers to understand. The API, specifically the Content Delivery API, can be a bit tricky sometimes. This can be improved by refactoring or making it a bit more seamless and easier to use for developers. Overall, the documentation part and the overall API integration part can be simplified, or perhaps Contentstack can provide a step-by-step guide in the documentation or update courses to be shorter, easier to access, and allow developers to obtain new certificates.
I believe performance-wise, Contentstack can be improved more. I noticed that sometimes it takes time, and I am not sure about the server side, as it may not be responding. We sometimes face legacy issues, but overall it is good, and sometimes the issue may come from the server. I choose nine out of ten because I sometimes face performance-related issues, and I feel that it is a little complex for new users, particularly regarding the dashboard.
Web Developer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Apr 3, 2026
I majorly work on structuring the CMS on the backend. I feel that we have restrictions on fields. On the backend, we have conditional logic as well. We can display a specific field based on a specific condition, but I feel it is too restricted. We cannot use it with global fields or a modular field. That is something the Contentstack team can address and remove those restrictions. Additionally, two or three months back, I connected with the support team of Contentstack. In the URL field, if we want to add any validation, we do not have that option at the code level or on the backend CMS. We can look at that. We have that field for one default URL, but we should keep that field universally if we want to add a regex-based validation. Some of the restrictions that we really do not want could be optimized further. There are also fewer field options to add. We have JSON RTE, but we should have a raw JSON field as well.
To improve Contentstack, training and examples should be enhanced, and updating SDKs to reflect technology changes would be beneficial. I would highly appreciate additional analytics offering via the API as a needed improvement.
Contentstack can be improved in localization because translation management within the system is difficult and mostly manual. Regarding needed improvements, I would add that license control is also a concern.
Contentstack is a headless CMS that offers a flexible and scalable platform for managing content across digital experiences. Designed for enterprise needs, it empowers teams to deliver seamless, personalized, and engaging customer journeys rapidly.Contentstack enables organizations to manage and deliver digital experiences across multiple channels with ease. It is built for fast deployment, integrating seamlessly with other platforms. Its headless architecture allows for flexibility in...
The documentation was easy to read, but it was hard to find a specific article. When we were searching for a specific capability, I didn't know how to start the search or where the starting point was. I do believe some AI tools in documentation would be helpful. I've seen many other CMS tools such as SAP Commerce built-in CMS, which is called SmartEdit. Contentstack is much more complex and advanced technology. I think there are still some UI improvements which can be done to simplify the work. I can give an example of Contentful, which is a little bit more user-friendly from a UI perspective. However, this is a solid product.
I would suggest increasing the developer-friendly documentation rather than just having a great product. The documentation is not developer-friendly, and the content is not so vivid and it is not made specific for the developers. There is an initial lot of handholding required. We are more worried about the pricing. For example, somebody who is a tech person trying to integrate based on the events finds it a little bit more not so accessible. It is not so accessible for a person who is doing it for the first time. I gave it to my intern and it just took him a lot more time than it took an experienced engineer. Probably the flow has not been right in terms of the documentation to cater to multiple developers. I would suggest increasing the absolute flow of the documentation which caters to the developers first because we first use this tool rather than the marketers using it. For a marketer, there should be quick access to the quick links. I think the access to the links and the generation of the links based on the events and other aspects requires documentation and support. Contentstack can be improved by enhancing developer documentation. Some support is needed in terms of integration, with iframes being rightly available on the portal rather than a developer going and figuring it out through the tokens and other aspects. Another thing is a code snippet directly available on app.contentstack.com rather than a developer creating it through VS Code. The integration flow is something where they have missed out. The sign-up flow needs improvement as well.
There are definitely some improvements needed in the documentation part to make it easier for developers to understand. The API, specifically the Content Delivery API, can be a bit tricky sometimes. This can be improved by refactoring or making it a bit more seamless and easier to use for developers. Overall, the documentation part and the overall API integration part can be simplified, or perhaps Contentstack can provide a step-by-step guide in the documentation or update courses to be shorter, easier to access, and allow developers to obtain new certificates.
I believe performance-wise, Contentstack can be improved more. I noticed that sometimes it takes time, and I am not sure about the server side, as it may not be responding. We sometimes face legacy issues, but overall it is good, and sometimes the issue may come from the server. I choose nine out of ten because I sometimes face performance-related issues, and I feel that it is a little complex for new users, particularly regarding the dashboard.
I majorly work on structuring the CMS on the backend. I feel that we have restrictions on fields. On the backend, we have conditional logic as well. We can display a specific field based on a specific condition, but I feel it is too restricted. We cannot use it with global fields or a modular field. That is something the Contentstack team can address and remove those restrictions. Additionally, two or three months back, I connected with the support team of Contentstack. In the URL field, if we want to add any validation, we do not have that option at the code level or on the backend CMS. We can look at that. We have that field for one default URL, but we should keep that field universally if we want to add a regex-based validation. Some of the restrictions that we really do not want could be optimized further. There are also fewer field options to add. We have JSON RTE, but we should have a raw JSON field as well.
To improve Contentstack, training and examples should be enhanced, and updating SDKs to reflect technology changes would be beneficial. I would highly appreciate additional analytics offering via the API as a needed improvement.
Contentstack can be improved in localization because translation management within the system is difficult and mostly manual. Regarding needed improvements, I would add that license control is also a concern.