Sanity vs Strapi

Sanity

The content-calendar plugin shows a graphical calendar with publish dates, author display and scheduled states, and the editorial workflows material adds stages, assignments and durable history — but the calendar plugin is marked deprecated for an older Studio version and actual scheduled publishing needs an external script or cronjob. The only brief in evidence is a do-it-yourself image-brief schema with status and reviewer fields. We found no public information on grouping content by campaign or channel, on briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords, or on workload and coverage views.

Strapi

The captured campaign-management page sells content types, reusable blocks and governance, and we found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs carrying goal and keywords, due dates or grouping by campaign. What the documentation does show is a content list filterable by assignee and review stage, plus releases for publishing entries as a group — workflow visibility, not a plan.

Sanity

Comments with mentions run on all paid plans and can be configured per document type, the editorial workflows material shows configurable stages, clear ownership and durable history, and scheduled drafts ship with the Growth plan. A full audit trail and the History API are named only for the Enterprise plan. We found no public information on guest or agency access limited to assigned pieces, on mandatory legal or brand reviewers, or on an exportable record of which version each approver released.

Strapi

Review workflows are documented impressively deeply: multiple configurable workflows per content type with custom stages, stage owners, per-stage role permissions and a required stage that blocks publishing, with stage, assignee and workflow changes captured in the audit logs. As the person who needs legal sign-off, I found no public information on comments, inline suggested edits or guest access limited to assigned pieces, and the workflows and audit logs sit on the Enterprise plan.

Sanity

Content is stored as structured JSON in the Content Lake with a fully definable model, references between entries, and unlimited content types and locales on every plan, so my second language adds nothing to the plan limits; AI Assist translates whole documents or single fields while retaining formatting. Export is documented only as a database export provided within thirty days after termination. We found no public information on field-level language fallback, translation workflow status per locale, named translation-service connectors, or a self-service export of content, model and assets together.

Strapi

The content model is exactly what I want under a multilingual site — collection and single types, repeatable components, dynamic zones, six relation types and unlimited locales — and the export command is documented and self-service, covering content, schemas, relations and assets. For German alongside English, though, we found no public information on field-level localisation with fallback languages, translation workflows with status per locale, or named translation-service connectors.

Sanity

The platform is API-first by design: content reaches any channel over the GROQ and GraphQL APIs, webhooks fire on content events, and the product list includes Live CDN, Functions, an App SDK and an MCP server, with named frameworks from React and Next.js to Astro. That covers publishing to websites and any API-consuming surface from one place. We found no public information on named connectors for the CRM, analytics or translation tools a marketing stack already runs, an integration marketplace, a public status page, or per-piece performance data flowing back into the platform.

Strapi

The delivery side is well documented: publicly documented REST and GraphQL APIs with an OpenAPI specification, webhooks on publish and change with fully populated entry payloads, a reviewed plugin marketplace and live preview. We found no public information on published rate limits, a public status page, or named CRM and analytics connectors — so performance per channel stays in a separate tool.

Sanity

The AI terms name OpenAI, Anthropic and Pinecone as providers receiving input data and state that all configurations explicitly prohibit or disable training on data transferred to them — the question I care most about, whether my drafts train anything, is answered head-on — and AI Assist's drafting, translation and variant features are described in concrete detail. Retention is given only as "a few days" by providers, and the terms allow technology partners to change without notice. We found no public information on an admin-level switch to disable AI features, on ownership of generated output, on EU processing for AI, or on marking generated text for EU AI Act transparency.

Strapi

The AI terms answer my ownership question bluntly: my input goes to third-party AI provider APIs, output might not be copyrightable and might be the same output handed to others, the integration is provided as-is without warranty or SLA, and Strapi can terminate it at any time without refund. Credit allowances, overage billing and bring-your-own-key are documented, but we found no public information on which providers run the models, whether my content trains them, an opt-out, or marking generated text for EU AI Act transparency.

Sanity

A GDPR-based privacy policy and a data processing addendum are offered, with standard contractual clauses for transfers out of the EEA, and the privacy policy names the Norwegian entity Sanity AS. The contracting terms, however, run under California law with exclusive venue in San Francisco, the site is hosted in the United States, customer input data goes to the US AI providers OpenAI, Anthropic and Pinecone, and the captured pages do not state the Google Cloud Platform region where content is held.

Strapi

The captured pages name Strapi Inc., a Delaware corporation, as contracting entity under California law, with primary storage of information in the United States and the EEA, while the privacy policy gives a Paris address for its data protection office and points to a published list of third-party service providers. Region choice and self-hosting give me some control over residency, but we found no public information on a data processing agreement or where AI prompts are processed.

Sanity

I can price my team myself: the Growth plan is $15 per seat per month with unlimited locales, viewer seats are free so agency guests can read without a seat, and overages are published to the cent — $0.05 per AI credit, $0.30 per 1GB bandwidth, $1 per 25K additional API requests. What I cannot compute is the Enterprise plan, which is custom-priced, and that is where the audit trail, SSO and the uptime SLA sit; annual billing is Enterprise-only, and the terms let AI consumption rates change at any time with immediate effect.

Strapi

For my Growth scenario the numbers are computable: $45 per month including 3 seats, +$15/month/seat, unlimited locales so the second language costs nothing extra, 1,000 AI credits per month with additional credits at $1.50 per 100 billed monthly in arrears, and a Single Sign-On add-on at $150/month plus $50/month/seat, with prices excluding applicable local taxes. The wall is that review workflows and audit logs require the Enterprise plan, whose price is not public, so the governed plan I would actually run is a sales conversation.