Sanity vs Storyblok

Sanity

The plugin page documents a graphical editorial calendar with at-a-glance schedule review and prioritization plus Schedule, Unschedule and Reschedule actions, but that plugin is marked deprecated, only runs on a deprecated Studio version, and its successor is merely named. The editorial workflows page adds stages, assignments and durable history, and a guide shows briefs with status, reviewer and usage-rights fields modeled by hand — but the publishing itself needs an external script or cronjob. We found no public information on campaign or channel grouping, per-person workload views, or recurring formats as scheduled series.

Storyblok

The workflow machinery carries dates and owners — stages from Drafting through Reviewing to Ready to Publish with an assignable person or role, a due date and an email notification for each stage — and every paid plan includes single-story scheduling, while an AI Ideation Room drafts and improves article ideas. The campaign material I read is a gated webinar about a 'Campaign House' framework rather than a product feature, and I found no public information on an editorial calendar across channels, on grouping content by campaign or topic, or on briefs that carry goal, audience and keywords to the writer.

Sanity

Comments and tasks on documents are documented with per-document-type configuration, mention permissions and plan availability, and the editorial workflows page gives configurable stages, assignments, decisions and durable history that can be driven from servers, the CLI or agents over MCP. A complete change history with plan-dependent retention is stated in the privacy policy, while the full audit trail and History API sit only on the Enterprise plan. We found no public information on mandatory reviewers such as legal or brand, guest access restricted to assigned pieces, or scheduled publishing that explicitly waits for approval.

Storyblok

Workflows are genuinely configurable: stages can be defined per content type with rules for who edits and who publishes at each stage, automatic progress and stage order, publishing in the default workflow is gated to the Ready to Publish stage, comments are recorded on each stage change with a history tab, stage changes can fire a webhook, and language-based workflows track the publication status of translated stories. The homepage promises 'Enterprise-grade roles, workflows, approvals, and audit trails', and custom workflows plus SSO and SCIM sit in the Premium and Elite plans. I found no public information on mandatory named reviewers, inline suggested edits, guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, or an audit log of every edit, approval and publish with user and timestamp; a separate Approval app with email sign-off was discontinued in version 2 in favour of discussions and workflows.

Sanity

This is the part I can verify from the API side: content is stored as structured JSON in the Content Lake, queryable with GROQ and GraphQL, with a documented modeling approach, references between entries enforced in schema, and unlimited content types and locales on all plans. The terms promise an export of subscriber data in the standard database export format within thirty days after termination. We found no public information on field-level localisation with fallback languages, translation workflow statuses or named translation-service connectors, and no documented migration tooling that works in both directions.

Storyblok

This is a real content model, not pages: fields, nestable blocks and stories are defined through components and content types, reference fields link entries to one another, datasources hold shared terminology, a block library with folders and tags keeps components organised, and a shared-components app lets a space inherit every component definition from a nominated parent space. Locales are a first-class priced dimension, language-based workflows manage the publication status of each translated story, and delivery is JSON over documented REST and GraphQL APIs, with a preview space for testing changes before production. I found no public information on field-level localisation with fallback languages, on market or audience variants, on named translation-service connectors, or on a self-service export that carries content, model, locales and assets out together.

Sanity

The delivery story is real, not a logo swap: an API-first decoupled architecture serving any consuming surface, GROQ and GraphQL endpoints, a CLI, a plugin install mechanism, and Live CDN, Functions, an App SDK and an MCP server all named as products, with webhooks including GROQ-powered webhooks. Usage limits for API and CDN requests are published on the pricing page. We found no public information on API versioning or a deprecation policy, a public status page, or named connectors for CRM tools — the long integration list covers front-end frameworks rather than a marketing stack.

Storyblok

My home ground, and the evidence is strong: a versioned GraphQL API — v2 current with v1 still addressable by changing the path — a published rate limit of 100 points per second with HTTP 429 on exceed, per-query cost estimation, cached requests free and automated schema documentation; a Management API whose webhook endpoints can be created, updated and deleted and which pushes Storyblok events to other applications, including workflow stage changes. Around it sit mobile SDKs in an open-source ecosystem, an app directory and app store for maintained connectors, framework support for Next.js, Astro, Nuxt, React, Vue, Symfony and Angular, a public status page, per-plan uptime SLAs measured on the Content Delivery API, and breaking changes contractually announced at least 30 days in advance with a termination-and-refund remedy. I found no public information on performance data per piece pulled back from analytics or attributed per channel, which is what the top of this scale asks for.

Sanity

AI Assist features are described concretely — long-form drafting, document and field translation retaining formatting, image generation and variants — and the AI terms name OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone and Google as third-party providers while stating that all configurations explicitly prohibit or disable training on transferred input data. Beyond that the governance thins out: we found no public information on an admin switch to disable AI features per role or content type, EU processing locations for AI, ownership wording for generated output, or marking of generated content for EU AI Act transparency, and the terms allow the vendor to change AI partners and consumption rates without notice.

Storyblok

Model transparency is unusually good: OpenAI, Google Gemini and Anthropic Claude are each named with specific model versions, admins enable AI features at space or organization level, organizations can supply their own credentials and default style groups, natural-language output rules shape brand voice, and usage history is filterable by provider, feature, user and space — all metered in credits explained as a model-dependent multiple of token cost. But the AI terms appear in these pages only as an archive of effective-date versions, so I found no public information on whether customer content trains the models, on opt-out, on retention of prompts and outputs, on where AI is processed, or on who holds the rights to generated output — the things a buyer of AI features needs in writing.

Sanity

A data processing agreement is offered and the privacy policy commits to the GDPR with standard contractual clauses for transfers, but the terms are governed by California law with exclusive venue in San Francisco under Sanity US Inc., the vendor's own site is hosted in the United States, and customer AI input data goes to the US providers OpenAI, Anthropic and Pinecone. Google Cloud Platform is named as a subprocessor without a stated region, so EU hosting of content and assets remains unproven rather than disproven.

Storyblok

The legal notice establishes an Austrian operator — Storyblok GmbH, Peter-Behrens-Platz 2, 4020 Linz, register number FN 479743 f, with the Regional Court Linz as competent court — a data processing agreement is offered, ISO 27001 certification is claimed, and the privacy policy publishes subprocessors with names, addresses and purposes. The general terms, however, place provision with a Storyblok Group company 'specifically named in your contract', so the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not established on these pages, service hosting is stated as AWS without a region, and the GraphQL API offers a European Union region alongside the United States, Canada, Australia and China. I found no public information on where customer content, backups or AI prompts are stored and processed.

Sanity

The pricing page is unusually computable: monthly and per-seat figures with included limits, overage rates for API requests, CDN requests, bandwidth, assets and compute, AI credits priced at "$0.05 PER AI CREDIT" with published per-action credit costs, and add-ons like "+ $299 PER MONTH" for extended quotas and "$999 PER DATASET / MO", with Enterprise named as the plan where SSO and the full audit trail begin. Self-serve plans are monthly only with no minimum term, and renewal, price-increase and non-renewal notice terms are stated in the terms of service. Enterprise is custom-priced and we found no public information on the cost of exporting content, which is what keeps a full annual cost from being derivable for everyone.

Storyblok

The self-service tiers are unusually computable: Growth at 99,00 €/mo monthly including 5 seats with more at 15,00 €/month, extra traffic at 75,00 €/month for each 250GB, extra API requests at 10,00 €/month per 1M, additional locales at 20,00 €/month each, and AI credits at 20,00 €/month per 200k above the 100k included; Growth Plus at 349,00 €/mo with 15 seats, 1TB traffic, 4M API requests, 10 locales and 200k AI credits; one month free on annual billing, no setup fees, VAT shown before subscribing, and the terms state a default one-year term, annual payment in advance, thirty-day non-renewal notice and non-refundable fees. But custom roles and workflows, SSO, SCIM and the higher SLAs are named only for Premium and Elite, priced 'Custom', and the FlowMotion workflow tiers are 'Contact Sales' — so the annual cost for a team that needs approval workflows or SSO is a sales conversation, and I found no public information on a content-record limit on the pricing pages.