Content Marketing
Sanity
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Sanity US Inc. · www.sanity.io
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.
Sanity at a glance
- Vendor
- Sanity US Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 15 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 15 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 15 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Sanity 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Sanity, a content operations platform contracting through Sanity US Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 15 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 14 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Sanity, a content operations platform contracting through Sanity US Inc. of San Francisco, scores strongest on pricing transparency at 7-8: Growth is published at $15 per seat per month, unlimited content types and locales are on every plan, viewer seats free, and overages stated exactly — $1 per 25K API requests, $0.30 per 1GB bandwidth, $0.05 per AI credit. Content model and reuse, distribution and integrations and collaboration and approval cluster at 4-6, resting on structured JSON storage, GROQ and GraphQL delivery to many named frontend frameworks, and comments, stages and durable history — though the audit trail, custom roles and SSO sit on the custom-priced Enterprise plan. Sovereignty is the weakest criterion at 1-3: judges found no public information on where content and assets are hosted or on a published subprocessor list, while AI input data is consented to the named providers OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone and Google. Editorial planning and AI and content rights score 4-5, with do-it-yourself briefs and AI retention stated as a few days by providers. Scores differ by at most two points on every criterion.
Speaks for it
- Pricing transparency scores 7-8, publishing Growth at $15 per seat per month with viewer seats free, no minimum term, and exact overage rates
- Content is stored as structured JSON in the Content Lake with unlimited content types and locales on every plan
- Documented GROQ and GraphQL APIs, webhooks, a Live CDN, a CLI and Vercel-hosted starter templates deliver to a long list of named frontend frameworks
- The AI terms name their providers — OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone and Google — and state that all configurations explicitly prohibit or disable training on transferred data
- Comments and Tasks are available on all paid plans with per-document-type configuration, and a complete change history is retained with plan-dependent periods
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores 1-3, the lowest range on the bench: contracts run through Sanity US Inc. of San Francisco, and judges found no public information on where content, assets and backups are hosted or on a published subprocessor list
- The full audit trail, custom roles and SSO sit on the Enterprise plan, which is custom pricing, so that tier's annual cost is not computable from public pages
- Export rests on a termination clause promising a copy in Sanity's standard database export format within thirty days, and we found no public information on a documented self-service export of content, model and locales
- The editorial calendar is a plugin you install and configure yourself, and briefs appear only in a do-it-yourself modeling guide, with no public information on campaigns, per-person workload views or coverage-gap reporting
- We found no public information on named CRM or analytics connectors, a public status page or published rate limits, and the uptime SLA is Enterprise-only
Best for
- You need an API-first headless CMS delivering structured JSON over documented GROQ and GraphQL APIs to your own frontend, with Vercel-hosted starter templates
- You want unlimited content types and locales on a self-serve plan you can cost from published seat prices and overage rates
- Your team has developer capacity to define schemas and configure plugins, since briefs and approval states are things you model yourself
- You are an early-stage startup; the Sanity Startup Program offers 1-year free access to the Growth plan
Avoid if
- Your procurement requires EU data residency or a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes; contracts run through Sanity US Inc. and AI input data is consented to third-party providers
- You need built-in editorial planning with campaigns, per-person workload views and coverage-gap reporting; the calendar is a plugin you install and briefs are do-it-yourself
- You need maintained CRM or analytics connectors and a public status page on self-serve plans; the captured integration story is frontend frameworks, and the uptime SLA is Enterprise-only
- You need a documented self-service export of content, model and locales together; the terms promise a copy in Sanity's standard database export format within thirty days following termination
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 | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 4 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
The content-calendar plugin puts a visual calendar inside the Studio with scheduling actions, post-schedule edit warnings and author display, and Editorial Workflows adds stages, assignments and durable history. But the calendar is a plugin you install and configure yourself, briefs appear only as a do-it-yourself schema tutorial for an image brief, and we found no public information on campaign or topic grouping, workload and deadline views per person, or coverage-gap reporting. 5 6 7
The SME Marketer
The content calendar plugin gives my team a visual calendar with scheduling and an author display, and the Editorial Workflows page describes stages, assignments and durable history — but the plugin's own docs advise running a cronjob or webhook listener to actually publish on schedule, and briefs appear only in a do-it-yourself modelling guide with status and reviewer fields. I found no public information on campaigns or topic grouping, per-person workload views, or plan-versus-published reporting. 5 6 7
The Localisation Lead
The content calendar plugin gives a visual calendar with schedule, unschedule and reschedule actions plus a warning when a scheduled document is edited afterwards, and the editorial workflows pages add stages, assignments and clear ownership of work. Briefs appear only as a do-it-yourself modelling guide for image briefs with status and reviewer fields, and we found no public information on campaign or topic grouping, planning across channels, recurring formats as series, or per-person workload and deadline views. For a desk running German, English and French side by side, nothing on the captured pages shows the calendar split by language or market. 5 6 7
The Web Engineer
The content-calendar plugin gives a visual calendar with schedule, unschedule and reschedule actions, a warning when a scheduled document is edited, and optional author display, while Editorial Workflows adds stages, assignments and durable history. Briefs appear only as a do-it-yourself Studio modeling guide for an image-brief document with status and reviewer fields, not as a product feature, and we found no public information on campaigns or topic clusters to group work under, or workload and deadline views per person. 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
The content calendar plugin provides a graphical calendar with scheduled publish dates and a Scheduled status, and the editorial workflows page describes stages, assignments and clear ownership; briefs appear only as a modeling guide with title, prompt, status and reviewer fields. We found no public information on campaigns or topic clusters to group work under, or on workload and deadline views per person. 5 6 7
The Skeptic
The editorial calendar is a Studio plugin with schedule, unschedule and reschedule actions driven by a date field, and a published guide shows a self-built brief document with status and reviewer fields, while workflow stages and assignments give work an owner. We found no public information on campaigns or topic clusters to group pieces under, per-person workload views, or reporting on coverage gaps and plan-versus-published. 5 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
Comments and tasks run on all paid plans with inline notes, custom status lists such as draft through sent to production, a reviewer field in the brief model, and complete change history retained per plan. The full audit trail and custom roles sit on the Enterprise plan, and we found no public information on mandatory reviewers, an approval trail recording which exact version was released, or guest access limited to assigned pieces. 2 6 7 8
The SME Marketer
Comments and Tasks come with every paid plan, complete change history is retained with plan-dependent periods, and inline notes are documented. But approval is a status field I would model myself from a tutorial example, the full audit trail, custom roles and SSO sit in the Enterprise plan, and I found no public information on guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces — exactly what I need when the agency joins. 8 6 2 3
The Localisation Lead
Document comments with per-document-type configuration, a complete change history including deleted documents, and scheduled drafts are public, and the editorial workflows system models stages, assignments, decisions and durable history. Custom roles and the full audit trail with the History API sit in the Enterprise plan, and we found no public information on guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, on preserving the exact approved version beyond the contract, or on a stated retention period for the approval trail. 2 6 7 8
The Web Engineer
Comments and Tasks ship on all paid plans with per-document-type control and a queryable, durable history, and workflows carry stages, assignments and human escalation for consequential choices, with full dataset history retained up to a plan-dependent maximum. The full audit trail and History API, custom roles and SSO sit behind the Enterprise plan, and we found no public information on guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, mandatory reviewers, scheduled publishing that waits for approval, or preservation of the exact version each approver released. 2 3 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Inline comments with role-based permissions, configurable stages, assignments, and routing of consequential choices to people are evidenced, and a complete history of all changes is retained with the period set by the plan. The full audit trail and History API are named only on the Enterprise plan, and we found no public information on guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, or on scheduled publishing that waits for approval. 2 3 6 7 8
The Skeptic
Inline comments run on all paid plans with per-document-type configuration, workflows carry stages, assignments and durable history, and a complete change history is kept per dataset with plan-dependent retention. The full audit trail and History API are Enterprise-plan features, and we found no public information on guest or freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, or on mandatory review steps that gate scheduled publishing. 2 3 7 8
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 lives as structured JSON in the Content Lake with typed references, create-once delivery across channels, unlimited content types and locales on every plan, and AI translation of whole documents or individual fields with formatting retained. We found no public information on field-level localisation with fallback languages, connectors to translation services, or a documented self-service export; the terms promise a copy in a standard database export format only within thirty days after termination. 2 4 9 10 12
The SME Marketer
Content is stored as structured JSON in the Content Lake with references between entries, reusable components and a create-once-publish-everywhere approach, and locales are unlimited on every plan — good news for our second language, which costs nothing extra. Translation of whole documents or specific fields is an AI Assist capability rather than a translation workflow with status per locale, I found no public information on connectors to translation services, and export rests on the APIs plus a copy in Sanity's standard database export format within thirty days following termination. 9 10 11 12 2 4 6
The Localisation Lead
Content lives as structured JSON in the Content Lake with a code-defined model, references between documents and unlimited locales on every plan, and the calendar even reads nested fields like title.en — the right shape for locale suffixes on fields, with AI Assist able to translate entire documents or specific fields while keeping formatting. But we found no public information on language fallbacks, translation workflows with status per locale, or named connectors to translation services, which is the daily bread of a three-language desk. The terms promise a copy of the data in the standard database export format within thirty days of termination; we found no public information on a documented, self-service export that takes content, model and locales out together. 2 4 9 10 12
The Web Engineer
Content is structured JSON in the Content Lake with types, relationships and validated references, queryable through GROQ and GraphQL, with unlimited content types and locales on every plan and media references carrying alt text and usage rights. Portability is the weak point: the only export statement we found is a termination clause promising a standard database export format within thirty days, and we found no public information on a documented self-service export of content and model together, migration tooling in both directions, or named translation service connectors. 2 4 6 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Content is stored as structured JSON in the Content Lake under a configurable model with relationships between entries, unlimited content types and locales on all plans, and document- or field-level translation through AI Assist. A copy of subscriber data in the vendor's standard database export format is promised only upon termination in the terms, and we found no public information on translation service connectors, fallback languages, or a documented self-service export of content, model, locales and assets. 2 4 9 10 12
The Skeptic
Content is stored as structured JSON in the Content Lake with a documented modeling approach, references between entries, unlimited content types and locales on every plan, and AI Assist translating whole documents or specific fields while retaining formatting. The export we can find is a termination clause promising a copy in Sanity's standard database export format within thirty days; we found no public information on a documented self-service export of content, model and locales, per-locale translation status, or fallback languages. 2 4 9 10 12
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
This is an API-first platform with GROQ and GraphQL endpoints, a Live CDN, webhooks, a CLI and server deployment, and a long list of frontend frameworks with Vercel-hosted templates, plus an MCP server for agents. We found no public information on connectors for common CRM or analytics tools, published rate limits, a public status page, or performance data pulled back per piece. 8 9 10 11
The SME Marketer
The API-first story is real: GraphQL and GROQ delivery, webhooks, a Live CDN, agent access via MCP, and named templates for Vercel and Next.js alongside a long list of frameworks. But scheduled publishing depends on a cronjob or webhook script per the calendar plugin's docs, I found no public information on named CRM or analytics connectors, SDKs, published rate limits or a status page, and the uptime SLA is Enterprise-only. 10 11 8 5 2 7
The Localisation Lead
An API-first architecture delivers structured JSON over GROQ and GraphQL to any consuming surface, webhooks are demonstrated on schedule metadata documents and GROQ-powered queries, and the integrations pages name a long list of frontend frameworks with templates deployed on Vercel and a CLI. Frontend connections are well covered, but we found no public information on named CRM or analytics integrations, a public status page, published API rate limits, or per-piece performance data flowing back. The uptime SLA appears only with the Enterprise plan. 2 8 10 11
The Web Engineer
The API promise holds up: documented GROQ and GraphQL endpoints, webhooks on comment and schedule events, an MCP server, Functions, a Live CDN, starter templates deployed on Vercel with instant previews, and a long list of supported frontend frameworks. What a builder still needs is absent from the captured pages: published rate limits, API versioning and a deprecation policy, a public status page, and named connectors for CRM or analytics — the integration story here is frameworks, not maintained connectors, and the uptime SLA is Enterprise-only. 5 7 8 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
Delivery to websites, apps, TV and other channels through the API is evidenced, with GraphQL and GROQ query languages, webhooks, a Live CDN, a CLI and many named frontend frameworks. We found no public information on named CRM or analytics integrations, a published API deprecation policy, published rate limits, or a public status page. 5 8 10 11
The Skeptic
A publicly described GraphQL and GROQ API with an App SDK, CLI, Live CDN and webhooks, including GROQ-powered webhooks, delivers content to a long list of named frontend frameworks, with starter templates deployed on Vercel. We found no public information on named connectors for CRM or analytics tools, an integration directory or marketplace, a public status page, or a delivery SLA below the Enterprise plan. 2 8 10 11
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 AI terms name OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone and Google as providers, state that all configurations explicitly prohibit or disable training on input data, allow stopping use at any time, and price usage at $0.05 PER AI CREDIT with per-action costs. We found no public information on where prompts are processed, an admin switch per workspace, labelling for EU AI Act transparency, or output rights assigned explicitly to the customer — and technology partners may change without notice. 2 12 13
The SME Marketer
The AI terms state that all configurations explicitly prohibit or disable training on data transferred to the named third-party providers — OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone, Google — which answers my biggest question about my drafts. I found no public information on an admin switch to turn AI features off per workspace, on where prompts are processed, or on EU AI Act labelling; retention is given only as "a few days by our providers", and rights to generated output rest on the general clause that the subscriber retains all rights in the subscriber data. 13 4 12
The Localisation Lead
The AI terms name OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone and Google as providers, state that configurations explicitly prohibit or disable training on input data, give prompt and output retention only as a few days by providers, and price AI credits at $0.05 per credit. But we found no public information on where AI is processed, an admin switch per workspace, labelling of generated text, or explicit ownership and indemnity for generated output, and the terms allow technology partners to change without notice and features to be deprecated at any time. 2 12 13
The Web Engineer
The AI terms name the providers — OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone, Google — and state that configurations explicitly prohibit or disable training on transferred data, with data retained by providers for a few days; credits are priced explicitly, including per-query and per-action credit costs for the Content Agent. But providers may change without notice and features may be deprecated at any time, and we found no public information on processing location for AI features, admin switches per workspace, EU AI Act labelling of generated text, or explicit assignment of output rights to the customer. 2 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
The generative AI terms name the third-party providers, state that all configurations explicitly prohibit or disable training on data transferred to them, and the general terms leave the subscriber's rights in subscriber data intact — but we found no public statement assigning rights to the generated output, no per-workspace admin switch for AI features, no processing location, and only a vague retention of inputs and outputs for a few days by the providers. The same terms permit changes of third-party partners without notice and reserve the right to alter or deprecate AI features at any time. 2 4 12 13
The Skeptic
The generative AI terms name the providers — OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone and Google — state that configurations explicitly prohibit using input data to train models, allow stopping the AI services at any time, and price AI credits at $0.05 per credit. We found no public information on where prompts and outputs are processed beyond 'a few days' of provider retention, a per-workspace admin switch for AI features, ownership of generated output, or labelling of AI-generated content for transparency rules. 2 12 13
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
The contracting entity is US-based with legal notices to San Francisco, AI input data is consented to third-party providers, and we found no public information on where content and assets are hosted or on a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes. A Data Processing Addendum is offered and the AI terms do name their providers, which is the only reason this is not lower. 3 4 11 13
The SME Marketer
Contracts run through the US entity, with legal notices addressed to San Francisco and offices listed in Oslo and San Francisco; I found no public information on where content and assets are hosted. AI input data is consented to be sent to the named US providers, and I found no public information on a general subprocessor list with locations and purposes, or on safeguards for that transfer — a Data Processing Addendum is offered. 4 13 2 10
The Localisation Lead
The contracting party is a US entity with its notice address in San Francisco, the generative AI chain runs on named US providers, and the site runs Google Analytics plus Meta, LinkedIn and X pixels on visitors. We found no public information on where content, assets and AI prompts are hosted or processed, on European hosting options, or on a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes; the Oslo office and Norwegian roots are not a data residency statement. 3 4 10 13
The Web Engineer
The contracting entity is Sanity US Inc. with a San Francisco notice address, AI input data is sent to US providers under consent, and we found no public information on where content, assets and AI prompts are stored or processed. A DPA is offered and Oslo appears as an office alongside San Francisco, but nothing in the captured pages evidences EU hosting, European ownership, or a published subprocessor list with locations and purposes. 2 4 13
The Data Protection Officer
Legal notices are directed to San Francisco and contracting runs through the US entity, with Oslo named only as a co-controller in the privacy policy; the captured pages give no statement of where content, assets and backups are hosted. The generative AI terms disclose that input data is sent to OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinecone and Google with partner changes permitted without notice, and we found no published subprocessor list with locations and purposes on the vendor's own pages; a Data Processing Addendum is offered. 2 3 4 11 13
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Sanity US Inc. of San Francisco, with offices listed in Oslo and San Francisco, and we found no public information on where content, assets and backups are hosted. The named AI providers are US companies, the AI terms allow technology partners to change without notice, and we found no published subprocessor list with locations and purposes; a Data Processing Addendum is offered. 2 3 4 13
Pricing transparency
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
Growth is priced at $15 PER SEAT / MONTH with viewer seats free, and the page states quotas and exact overage rates — $1 PER 25K API requests, $0.30 PER 1GB bandwidth, $0.05 PER AI CREDIT — alongside priced add-ons for datasets, quota extension and support, and names Enterprise as the plan with SSO and the audit trail. Enterprise pricing is custom, annual billing is offered only on Enterprise, and we found no public information on the cost of exporting or leaving the platform, which is what keeps full annual computability out of reach. 2 4
The SME Marketer
For my concrete scenario the pricing page is generous: unlimited locales on every plan means the second language adds nothing, every non-viewer seat is $15 per seat / month on Growth with viewer seats free, and overages are listed exactly — $0.05 PER AI CREDIT, $1 PER 25K additional API requests, $0.30 PER 1GB bandwidth. But self-serve plans are monthly only, the base document quota is only implied by the $299 add-on extending it to 50k documents, and the full audit trail and SSO sit in the Enterprise plan at CUSTOM PRICING, so I cannot compute that tier from public pages. 2 11
The Localisation Lead
Growth is priced at $15 per seat per month with unlimited locales and content types, and quotas with overage rates are public for documents, API and CDN requests, bandwidth, assets, compute, embeddings and AI credits at $0.05 per credit, with viewer seats free and the Enterprise plan named as where SSO, the audit trail and the uptime SLA begin — a buyer can largely compute a self-serve cost from the public pages. Enterprise pricing stays a sales conversation, self-serve plans are monthly only, and we found no published price for the termination export promised in the terms. 2 4
The Web Engineer
Limits and overage rates are public down to API requests at $1 per 25K, CDN requests at $1 per 250K, bandwidth at $0.30 per 1GB, assets, compute, invocations, embeddings and AI credits at $0.05 per AI credit, with viewer seats free, locales and content types unlimited on all plans, and named add-ons like the $299 per month quota extension and $999 per dataset per month extra dataset. Plan gates are explicit — audit trail, SSO and the uptime SLA begin at Enterprise — though Enterprise itself is custom-priced, annual billing is Enterprise-only, and the export on termination is described but not priced. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page states a free plan, $15 per seat per month for Growth, unlimited content types and locales, and document, API request, CDN request, bandwidth, asset and compute limits with overage rates such as $1 per 25K requests, $0.30 per 1GB bandwidth and $0.05 per AI credit, alongside add-ons priced at $299 and $999 per month. The Enterprise plan, which is where the full audit trail, History API and SSO begin, is custom pricing, and we found no public information on contract renewal conditions or on the cost of exporting or leaving the platform. 2 4
The Skeptic
Self-serve pricing publishes seat prices together with the limits and overage rates a real invoice turns on — API requests at $1 per 25K, bandwidth at $0.30 per 1GB, assets at $0.50 per 1GB, AI credits at $0.05 per credit — plus priced add-ons and unlimited content types and locales on every plan, with no minimum term. The Enterprise plan, where single sign-on, the full audit trail and the uptime SLA live, is custom pricing, so the annual cost for a team needing those is not computable from public pages, and we found no public information on the cost of exporting content on exit. 2 4
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Sanity
Is Sanity European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Sanity as Rest of world.
Where does Sanity store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 15 Oct 2026.
Does Sanity have a free plan?
Yes. Sanity has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 15 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Sanity?
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: Sanity alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 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 — 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.
- 45 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
- 18 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
- 8 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
- 6 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
- 5 data 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 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
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Planning, editorial calendar & briefs — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Planning, editorial calendar & briefs — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Creation, review & approval — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Structured content, localisation & export — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Publishing, distribution & integrations — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 15 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 AI assistance & content rights — found from sitemap www.sanity.io Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →