Content Marketing
Magnolia
UK / wider Europe Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Magnolia International Ltd · www.magnolia-cms.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Magnolia at a glance
- Vendor
- Magnolia International Ltd
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Magnolia 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Magnolia, a Basel-based content marketing DXP, is strongest where its structure is visible: collaboration and approval scored 6-7, and content model and reuse and distribution and integrations each clustered at 6. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Magnolia, a Basel-based content marketing DXP, is strongest where its structure is visible: collaboration and approval scored 6-7, and content model and reuse and distribution and integrations each clustered at 6. Judges credit documented six-eye and eight-eye review with approve, reject and abort, YAML-defined content types with per-locale REST and GraphQL, CSV export carrying i18n properties like title de, and a marketplace naming SAP, Salesforce and Algolia. Its weakest areas are editorial planning and AI and content rights: campaigns can be grouped and scheduled to go live, but we found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs or owners, and while AI agents, assisted generation and third-party LLM choice are advertised, with no provider or prompt-processing location named. Sovereignty scored 3-4: deployment choice is stated — dedicated Swiss and European clouds, Mironet, Hetzner and self-hosting, alongside AWS, Azure, GCP and Aliyun — but the contracting entity's jurisdiction, default residency and subprocessors are unconfirmed. The widest spread, editorial planning, turns on whether campaign scheduling counts as editorial production. No price figures are published.
Speaks for it
- Six-eye and eight-eye review modules run in series with approve, reject and abort at each step, reviewer groups configured in the Security app.
- Content types are defined in a single YAML file with no WAR deployment or restart required.
- CSV import and export works in both directions and can include i18n properties such as title de and title fr.
- REST and GraphQL delivery endpoints are publicly documented with filtering, sorting and pagination, beside a marketplace naming SAP, Salesforce and Algolia.
- Deployment choice is stated — AWS, Azure, GCP, Mironet or Hetzner, dedicated Swiss and European clouds, or self-hosting — with ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 listed.
Held against it
- We found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs carrying goal and audience, owners, or views of what is due or late.
- We found no public information on which AI model or provider runs the advertised features, where prompts are processed, whether customer content trains them, or who holds rights to the output.
- We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, a subprocessor list, or a data processing agreement.
- We found no public information on webhooks, published rate limits, SDKs, or a public status page.
- We found no public information on inline comments, version history with restore, guest or freelancer access, or an audit log with user and timestamp.
Best for
- You need configurable multi-step approval — six-eye and eight-eye review with named reviewer groups — before content ships.
- Your content model lives in code and your sites are multilingual, with per-locale delivery through documented REST and GraphQL APIs.
- You want to choose cloud and region yourself, including dedicated Swiss or European clouds or self-hosting.
- You run omnichannel campaigns across web, email, social and mobile and want them grouped, scheduled and re-runnable in one place.
Avoid if
- You need editorial production planning — an editorial calendar, briefs, owners and workload views — since editorial planning scored 2-4 on campaign material that describes marketing experiences rather than planned writer work.
- Your legal reviewer must see the AI provider, prompt-processing location and output-rights terms before a single prompt is sent — AI and content rights scored 2-3.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Planning, editorial calendar & briefs | 2 of 5 |
| Creation, review & approval | 3 of 5 |
| Structured content, localisation & export | 3 of 5 |
| Publishing, distribution & integrations | 3 of 5 |
| AI assistance & content rights | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
Planning, editorial calendar & briefs
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Turning a content strategy into scheduled work: topics and campaigns, an editorial calendar across channels, briefs that carry the goal, audience and keywords to the writer, and a view of what is due, late or missing.
0 — No planning features; content is created as standalone entries with no calendar, status or owner.
3 — A shared calendar with publish dates and simple statuses, but no briefs, no campaigns or topics to group work under, and no notion of who owns a piece.
5 — An editorial calendar across channels with owners, due dates and custom statuses, briefs attached to each piece, and content grouped by campaign or topic cluster.
8 — Strategy is connected to the plan: topics or personas defined once and assigned to pieces, configurable workflows per content type, workload and deadline views per person, and recurring formats scheduled as series.
10 — The plan is accountable: every published piece traces back to its brief, topic and campaign, gaps in coverage per topic or funnel stage are reported, and plan-versus-published is visible over time without a spreadsheet.
The Head of Content
Campaigns can be grouped, scheduled to go live at a chosen time, and pushed across web, email, social and mobile touchpoints, which is more than standalone entries. But we found no public information on an editorial calendar with owners and due dates, on briefs that carry the goal to the writer, or on any view of what is late — the campaign pages speak marketer language, not editorial production. 6 7
The SME Marketer
Campaign management is real: campaigns are grouped in one place, scheduled to go live at a chosen time, and run through customizable workflows with a scheduler module behind them. But this is a campaign calendar, not an editorial one — I found no public information on briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords to the writer, per-piece due dates and owners, or workload views per person, so my plan-versus-published tracking stays in a spreadsheet. 6 7 8
The Localisation Lead
Campaigns are the grouping device: the Campaign Manager schedules go-live times, integrates chosen touchpoints and pushes campaigns ahead of time, and review tasks are assigned to named groups in the Security app. We found no public information on an editorial calendar with due dates, custom statuses and per-person workload, or on briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords to the writer. 6 7 8 9
The Web Engineer
Scheduling exists in the form of campaigns set to go live at a chosen time, and work is grouped as omnichannel campaigns with tracking codes and time-based variants. We found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs carrying goal and audience, owners, or deadline and workload views — the captured campaign material describes targeted marketing experiences rather than planned writer work. 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Campaigns are the unit of planning here: campaigns are grouped and personalised, scheduled to go live at a chosen time, re-runnable, and carry their own tracking codes with a scheduler module in the workflow stack. We found no public information on an editorial calendar with owners and due dates per piece, on briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords to the writer, or on any view of what is due, late or missing. 6 7 8
The Skeptic
The captured pages show campaign management with scheduled go-live, one-click publishing and re-runs, so work can be grouped into campaigns and pushed ahead of time. We found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs that carry goal and audience, owners, or views of what is due, late or missing. 6 7
Creation, review & approval
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Writing and reviewing content together: editing with comments and suggestions, roles and permissions for internal and external contributors, and an approval trail that records who released which version.
0 — Single-user editing with no comments, no roles beyond admin, and no record of changes.
3 — Comments and a version history exist, but every user can publish, external writers need a full seat, and approval is a status anyone can set.
5 — Roles that separate writing from publishing, inline comments and suggested edits, a version history with restore, and guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces.
8 — Configurable multi-step approval per content type or market, mandatory reviewers (legal, product, brand), scheduled publishing that waits for approval, and an audit log of every edit, approval and publish with user and timestamp.
10 — Approval is evidence: the exact version each approver released is preserved and exportable, permissions reach down to field and locale level, and the audit trail is retained for a stated period and available after the contract ends.
The Head of Content
This is the strongest area for my team: configurable multi-step approval with six-eye and eight-eye review layers in series, reviewer groups set in the Security app, approve, reject and abort decisions, a scheduler, soft locking and role-based access. What I could not find is the audit log with user and timestamp for every edit, approval and publish, or a preserved, exportable record of the exact version each approver released — the trail I answer for. 8 9 2
The SME Marketer
The multi-step approval story is convincing: six-eye and eight-eye review workflows configured in series, reviewer groups set in the Security app, approve/reject/abort at each step, and role-based permissions with RBAC and SSO. What I could not find is anything on inline comments and suggested edits, version history with restore, or guest and freelancer access limited to assigned pieces — exactly the pieces I need before adding the agency as guests. 2 8 9
The Localisation Lead
Documented Six Eye and Eight Eye workflow modules run a preview step in series with publication review, offering approve, reject and abort with reviewer groups configured per task, on top of role-based access control and SSO. We found no public information on inline comments and suggested edits, external writers limited to assigned pieces, or an exportable audit log of every edit, approval and publish with user and timestamp. 2 8 9
The Web Engineer
Approval depth is documented and real: an eight-eye workflow stacks a second review layer on the six-eye publication review, reviewer groups are assigned in the Security app, tasks carry approve, reject and abort, and role-based permissions wrap creation, editing and approval. We found no public information on inline comments, content version history with restore, guest or freelancer access, or an audit log recording who released which version with a timestamp. 2 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Multi-step approval is real and configurable: a six-eye review extended by an eight-eye second layer, a preview human task with approve, reject and abort actions, reviewer groups configured through a security app, and role-based permissions with SSO; content metadata also records who created and last modified an item. We found no public information on an audit log of every edit, approval and publish retained for a stated period, on exportable records of the exact version each approver released, or on guest access limited to assigned pieces. 2 8 9 13
The Skeptic
Approval is genuinely configurable and multi-step: the eight-eye workflow stacks a preview-8eye human task with reviewer groups on top of six-eye review, with approve, reject and abort actions and Slack and email notifications. We found no public information on inline comments or suggested edits, a version history with restore, guest or freelancer access, or an audit log of every edit with user and timestamp. 7 8 9
Structured content, localisation & export
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether content is stored as reusable structure rather than pages: a content model, components shared across channels, German and other locales managed side by side, and the whole repository exportable in a documented format.
0 — Content stored as formatted pages with no structure, one language per entry, and no export beyond copy and paste.
3 — Custom fields or templates exist, but localisation means duplicating entries, assets live elsewhere, and the only export is HTML or a CSV of titles.
5 — A configurable content model with reusable components, field-level localisation with fallback languages, a media library with alt text, and an export of entries and assets in JSON or a similar documented format.
8 — References between entries, variants per market or audience, translation workflows with status per locale and connectors to translation services named, and a full export of content, model, locales and assets documented and self-service.
10 — The repository is portable by design: model and content exportable together and re-importable, migration tooling or a CLI documented in both directions, version history included in the export, and no feature that only works while the content stays.
The Head of Content
Content types defined in a single YAML file, unlimited language support, i18n properties carried in the export, and a locale argument in both the REST and GraphQL APIs give me real structure with language variants managed side by side, plus CSV import and export in both directions. We found no public information on translation workflows with per-locale status, on named translation-service connectors, or on a documented export of the whole model and assets together. 10 11 13 2
The SME Marketer
Content types are defined in a single YAML file, unlimited language support sits side by side as i18n properties like title de and title fr, the REST and GraphQL endpoints take a locale argument, and CSV import/export plus documented JSON delivery give me a path out of my repository. I found no public information on translation workflows with status per locale, named translation-service connectors, or fallback languages — which is precisely what my second-language rollout turns on. 2 10 11 12 13
The Localisation Lead
Locales sit on the fields, which is what I want to see: exports can include i18n properties such as title de and title fr, REST can return all language variants of a node and GraphQL takes a locale argument per query, with content types modelled in YAML and a documented CSV exporter configurable per workspace. We found no public information on translation workflows with status per locale, fallback languages, or named connectors to translation services. 10 11 12 13
The Web Engineer
Content types are defined in a single YAML file with no WAR deployment or restart, language variants are first-class in the APIs (locale arguments, retrieving all variants), and the content exporter does CSV import and export in both directions including language properties and subnodes. We found no public information on translation-service connectors, per-field fallback languages, or an export that carries the model, assets and version history together. 10 11 13
The Data Protection Officer
Content types are defined in YAML light modules, language variants sit on the same properties (title de, title fr) and are retrievable per locale through the delivery endpoints, and CSV import and export round-trips entries with the model living in code. We found no public information on fallback languages, translation workflows with status per locale, connectors to translation services, or a bundled export of content, model and assets together. 2 10 11 12
The Skeptic
Content types are defined in YAML with unlimited language support, and the Content Exporter does CSV import and export in both directions that can include i18n properties such as title de and title fr, with a locale argument in GraphQL and a lang=all option in REST. We found no public information on fallback languages, translation workflow status per locale, named translation connectors, or version history included in an export. 2 10 11 12 13
Publishing, distribution & integrations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting approved content to where it is read: publishing to websites and channels, a documented API and webhooks, and named connections to the CMS, CRM, analytics, SEO and translation tools a marketing stack already runs.
0 — Content leaves only by copy and paste; no API, no webhooks and no named integrations.
3 — Publishing to one CMS through a plugin, a handful of named integrations, and an API that is mentioned but not publicly documented.
5 — Publishing to websites and several channels from one place, a publicly documented REST or GraphQL API, webhooks on publish and change, and integrations named for at least the common CMS, CRM and analytics tools.
8 — A versioned API with published rate limits and SDKs, preview environments, a marketplace or integration directory with maintained connectors, performance data per piece pulled back from analytics, and a public status page.
10 — The platform is a dependable source for every channel: API deprecation policy published, CDN and delivery SLA stated, scheduled and event-driven publishing documented end to end, and content performance attributed per channel without a separate tool.
The Head of Content
The REST delivery endpoint and the GraphQL API are documented to a depth I rarely see — filters, operators, pagination, sorting, locale handling — and the marketplace names SAP, Salesforce, Segment, Algolia, Netlify and Marketo, with delivery across web, email, social and mobile. But we found no public information on webhooks on publish and change, on API rate limits or SDKs, on a status page, or on per-piece performance data pulled back from analytics. 12 13 4 7
The SME Marketer
The delivery story is solid: publicly documented REST and GraphQL endpoints with filtering, pagination and sorting, omnichannel campaign delivery across web, email, social and mobile, named connectors for Salesforce, Marketo, Segment and Algolia, a DXP Marketplace, CDN integration and an uptime SLA of up to 99.9 percent. I found no public information on webhooks on publish and change, published rate limits, SDKs, or a public status page, which keeps it short of dependable-source territory. 2 4 7 12 13
The Localisation Lead
Two publicly documented delivery APIs — REST endpoints with filters, operators and pagination, and GraphQL with introspection, sorting and per-locale queries — sit alongside a marketplace naming SAP, Salesforce, Segment, Algolia, Cloudinary and others, with delivery across web, email, social and mobile from one place. We found no public information on webhooks on publish and change, published rate limits and SDKs, or a public status page. 4 7 12 13
The Web Engineer
The delivery surface is properly documented — REST endpoints with pagination metadata and filter operators, a GraphQL endpoint generating a schema per content type with sorting, aliases and locale arguments — beside a marketplace naming SAP, Salesforce, Cloudinary, Algolia, Segment, Netlify and Commercetools, with a stated 99.9% uptime and unlimited dev and test environments. We found no public information on webhooks on publish or change, published rate limits, SDKs, or a public status page. 2 4 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Both a REST delivery endpoint and a GraphQL endpoint are publicly documented with filtering, sorting and pagination, a marketplace names connectors for SAP, Salesforce, Segment, Algolia and others, marketing automation connects to Marketo and Salesforce Sales Cloud, and CDN integration and a stated 99.9% uptime figure appear on the pricing page. We found no public information on webhooks on publish and change, published rate limits, SDKs, or a public status page. 2 4 7 12 13
The Skeptic
The REST delivery endpoint and the GraphQL API are publicly documented with filtering, sorting and pagination, and there is a marketplace naming SAP, Salesforce, Cloudinary, Segment, Netlify, Commercetools and Marketo, plus CDN integration and up to 99.9% uptime. We found no public information on webhooks, published rate limits, SDKs, or a public status page. 2 4 7 12 13
AI assistance & content rights
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the platform's AI does with the customer's content and what the customer may do with the AI's: the models and where they run, whether content trains them, opt-out, labelling of generated text, and who holds the rights to output.
0 — AI writing features with no statement on which model is used, where content is sent, or whether it is used for training.
3 — An AI page that names a provider but leaves open whether customer content trains models, where prompts are processed, or whether the features can be switched off.
5 — The model providers named as subprocessors, customer content excluded from training stated in the terms, AI features switchable per workspace by an admin, and ownership of generated output assigned to the customer.
8 — EU processing for AI features stated or selectable, retention of prompts and outputs given in days, generated or AI-edited content markable for EU AI Act transparency, and brand voice or terminology rules applied without uploading content to train a shared model.
10 — AI is governed and documented: per-feature list of model, provider and processing location, admin controls per role and content type, an audit trail of AI-generated changes, and the output rights and any indemnity written into the contract terms.
The Head of Content
The platform advertises AI agents, AI-assisted content generation, agentic chat and a choice of models including third-party LLMs, but the captured material names no provider, no processing location, and says nothing about whether customer content trains the models, whether the features can be switched off, or who holds the rights to the output. We found no public information on any of the questions my legal reviewer would ask before a single prompt is sent. 1 2
The SME Marketer
As the person writing half our content with an AI assistant, this is the gap that stops me cold: the platform advertises AI agents, AI-assisted content generation, agentic chat and AI model choice with third-party LLMs, and even positions itself around governed AI. But nothing captured names the models or a provider, states where prompts are processed, or answers whether my drafts train them — and I found no public information on training exclusion in the terms, admin switch-off, labelling of generated text, or who owns the output, even though AI governance documentation pages exist. 1 2 14 15
The Localisation Lead
AI assistance is presented as governed, with AI model choice and integration with leading third-party LLMs named, but no model provider is stated anywhere captured. We found no public information on whether customer content trains models, where prompts are processed and for how long they are retained, labelling of generated text for EU transparency, or who holds the rights to generated output. 1 2
The Web Engineer
AI is front and centre — agents, assisted content generation, agentic chat, an MCP server and client, and a claim of AI model choice with third-party LLM integration — yet the captured pages name no provider, model or processing location. We found no public information on whether customer content trains models, on opt-out or admin switching of AI features, on labelling of generated text, or on who holds rights to the output. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pages list AI agents, AI-assisted generation, agentic chat, an MCP server and client, and AI model choice with third-party LLM integration — more than a bare feature list. But we found no public information on whether customer content trains the models, where prompts are processed, prompt retention in days, an admin switch-off per workspace, or who holds rights to the generated output, and nothing of this appears tied into the terms. 1 2
The Skeptic
AI is marketed prominently — agents, assisted content generation, agentic chat, and AI model choice with leading third-party LLMs — but we found no public information on which model or provider runs it, where prompts are processed, whether customer content trains them, whether the features can be switched off, labelling of generated text, or who holds rights to the output. 1 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where content, assets and AI prompts are stored and processed, and which subprocessors touch them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where content is hosted, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — Content hosted in the EU on request or on a higher plan only, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI and analytics features send content outside the EU without an explained safeguard.
5 — EU hosting stated for content and assets, a DPA available, but the contracting entity or significant parts of the chain (CDN, AI, support) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity, content, assets and backups stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations and purposes, and AI processing location stated.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity, every hosting, CDN, AI and support subprocessor European or optional, self-hosting or a European cloud offered, and certifications published.
The Head of Content
DX Cloud can be deployed to dedicated Swiss and European clouds, Mironet or Hetzner, so European hosting is a real option the customer selects — but the same page equally offers AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and Aliyun, and we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction from the vendor's own captured pages, no subprocessor list with locations, and no statement on where AI prompts are processed. 2 1
The SME Marketer
The instincts are right for a DACH buyer: a Swiss company in Basel, DX Cloud deployable to named European providers like Mironet and Hetzner or dedicated Swiss and European clouds, and a self-hosted option alongside it. But the captured pages give no confirmed contracting entity, no data-residency statement, no subprocessor list with locations and purposes, and no AI processing location — so I cannot verify where my content and prompts actually sit. 1 2 4
The Localisation Lead
Deployment can land on named European infrastructure — Hetzner, Mironet, dedicated Swiss and European clouds — and a self-hosted edition exists alongside published ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 certifications, though the same pages equally offer AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and Aliyun. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction, default data residency, a subprocessor list with locations and purposes, or a data processing agreement. 2 4
The Web Engineer
Deployment choice is stated plainly: DX Cloud runs on AWS, Azure, GCP, Mironet or Hetzner in your chosen regions, dedicated Swiss and European clouds are offered, DX Core allows self-hosting, and ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 are listed. The contracting entity, data residency default and subprocessors came back unconfirmed on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a published subprocessor list or on where AI prompts are processed. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The buyer can choose cloud and region, including dedicated Swiss and European clouds, Mironet and Hetzner, or self-host entirely, which is meaningful control over where drafts and author profiles sit. But the contracting entity's jurisdiction is not confirmed on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations and purposes, a data processing agreement, or where AI prompts are processed; the certificates shown are ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2. 2 4
The Skeptic
The customer controls cloud and region, with dedicated Swiss and European clouds, Hetzner and Mironet alongside AWS, Azure, GCP and Aliyun, and ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2 certifications are published. The contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, default data residency and the subprocessor list are unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages as captured, and we found no public information on where AI prompts are processed. 1 2
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the annual cost for their team, locales and traffic from public pages alone — seats and contributor roles, locales, content records, API calls and bandwidth, AI credits, and the plan where approval workflows or SSO begin.
0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price per month, but what it includes is vague and the limits that drive the real cost (locales, records, API calls, AI credits) are unstated.
5 — Plans priced per seat with their main limits listed, but at least one commonly incurred cost (extra locales, overage on records or API calls, AI credits, guest contributors) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every plan priced with seats, locales, records, API and bandwidth limits and overage rates stated, AI usage priced or included explicitly, and the plan that unlocks approval workflows, SSO and audit logs named.
10 — Complete cost computability: annual cost derivable for a given team, locale count and traffic, every add-on and overage priced publicly, contract term and renewal conditions stated, and the cost of exporting or leaving the platform zero or published.
The Head of Content
The pricing page names what affects the price — traffic levels, uptime guarantee, cloud deployment, SLA and support — but shows no figure at all; the advertised path forward is booking a demo. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual cost from these pages, and we found no public information on seat prices, locale or record costs, add-on prices, or the plan where approval workflows and SSO begin. 2 7
The SME Marketer
For a 120-person company wanting to compute the annual cost of seats, a second language and agency guests, there is nothing to compute with: the pricing page names what affects your price — traffic levels, uptime guarantee, cloud deployment, SLA and support — but no plan names, no per-seat figures, no locale or add-on prices anywhere. Everything routes to booking a demo with the sales team, so budgeting means a sales conversation. 2 4 7
The Localisation Lead
The pricing page names what affects the price — traffic levels, uptime guarantee, cloud deployment, SLA and support — and identifies add-ons such as frontend hosting, design system hosting and Solr search hosting, but no price figures appear anywhere captured. Seats, locales, records, API and bandwidth limits and overage rates are all unstated, and the buying path shown is a demo or a sales contact, so an annual cost is not computable from public pages. 2 7
The Web Engineer
The pricing page names what affects the price — traffic levels, uptime guarantee, cloud deployment, SLA and support — but quotes no figure for any plan, and the offered next steps are a demo booking and product-brief downloads. We found no public information on seat prices, contributor roles, or any limit, overage or add-on rate. 2 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
The public pricing page explains what drives the price — traffic levels, uptime guarantee, cloud deployment, SLA and support — and names paid add-ons such as frontend, design system and Solr search hosting. We found no public price figures on any captured page, and the route in is a demo and gated product briefs, so an annual cost for a given team or traffic level is not computable from public pages. 2 6 7
The Skeptic
The pricing page publicly names what affects the price — traffic levels, uptime guarantee, cloud deployment, SLA and support — but we found no public information on plan prices, seats, locale or API limits, or AI-credit costs, and the routes offered are a demo and the sales team. A buyer cannot compute an annual cost from the public pages. 2 4 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Magnolia
Is Magnolia European?
Yes, though not from the EU. whats-best.ai classifies Magnolia as UK / wider Europe.
Where does Magnolia store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Magnolia have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Magnolia?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates CoreMedia (3/5), Storyblok (2.5/5) and Contently (2.5/5) highest among the other 14 Content Marketing products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is CoreMedia (EU origin, foreign-owned). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Magnolia alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 27 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Contact page naming the legal entity www.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Planning, editorial calendar & briefs — found from sitemap www.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Planning, editorial calendar & briefs — found from sitemap www.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap docs.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap docs.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap docs.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap docs.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap docs.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap docs.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap docs.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap docs.magnolia-cms.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →