Strapi

The Head of Content

Entries carry review stages — the defaults run To do, Ready to review, In progress, Reviewed — and an assignee the content list can be filtered by, which is a sliver of work management. Beyond that we found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs, campaign or topic grouping, or any view of what is due or late; the captured planning page describes architecture and community, not schedules. 5 6 7

Report an error

The SME Marketer

The pages give me statuses and owners but nothing to plan with: review stages like "To do" and "Ready to review" can be assigned, filtered and given owners, yet we found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs, campaign or topic grouping, or per-person deadline and workload views. As someone who schedules a quarter of content in advance, that planning layer decides the score for me. 5 6 7

Report an error

The Localisation Lead

The captured pages show status and ownership through review stages, assignees and draft-versus-published states, but we found no public information on an editorial calendar, briefs, due dates or campaign and topic grouping. The campaign-management page speaks to hosting, APIs and community rather than scheduling, and Releases show up as a paid-plan feature and a publishing event rather than a scheduled calendar of work. 2 5 7

Report an error

The Web Engineer

Statuses and owners exist through review stages with assignees, and Releases allow publishing entries as a group, but we found no public information on an editorial calendar, due dates, briefs, or campaign and topic grouping. That is workflow state, not a plan a marketing team can run. 2 11 7

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Custom review stages with named owners and releases for publishing batches of content together are the only planning-adjacent capabilities the captured pages show, and the captured campaign-management page itself carries hosting and framework material rather than planning detail. I found no public information on an editorial calendar, due-date or workload views per person, briefs carrying goals and keywords, or grouping of work under campaigns or topic clusters. 5 6 7 2

Report an error

The Skeptic

The captured campaign-management page names frontend frameworks, scaling and governance, but its text shows no editorial calendar, briefs, campaign grouping or due-date view; the only ownership and status notions are review stages with assignees, and those sit behind the Enterprise plan. We found no public information on briefs carrying goal, audience and keywords, or on workload and deadline views per person. 5 7 6

Report an error

The Head of Content

This is the part I would actually buy: configurable multi-step workflows per content type — up to 200 workflows with 200 stages each — per-stage permissions over who can move content in or out, an assignee on every entry, and a required stage that blocks publishing until the piece sits at it, with the vendor itself pitching an eight-step legal review. Workflow, stage and assignee changes are captured automatically in Audit Logs, and content history and SSO sit on Enterprise. We found no public information on inline comments or suggested edits, on scheduled publishing that waits for approval, or on the exact approved version being preserved and exportable. 2 6 7

Report an error

The SME Marketer

Strongest area for my team: configurable multi-stage workflows per content type — the vendor's own example runs to an 8-step legal review — with per-stage role permissions, stage owners, per-entry assignees, and a required stage that blocks publishing until content reaches it, all recorded in the audit logs on the Enterprise plan. We found no public information on inline comments, suggested edits, or guest and freelancer access limited to assigned pieces, and no evidence the exact approved version is preserved and exportable. 1 6 7

Report an error

The Localisation Lead

Multi-stage review workflows per content type with per-stage role permissions, assignees and a required stage that blocks publishing are documented, together with audit-log capture of workflow, stage and assignee changes — the workflows themselves sitting on the Enterprise plan. We found no public information that every edit and publish carries a user and timestamp in the audit log, nor permissions reaching down to field or locale level, which is what I would need for multi-market sign-off. 2 6 7 7

Report an error

The Web Engineer

Configurable multi-step approval per content type is well evidenced — up to 200 workflows, custom stages with named owners, per-stage role permissions for moving content in and out, a required stage before publishing, and review actions captured in Audit Logs with a matching stage-change webhook. We found no public information on inline comments or suggested edits, guest or freelancer access, or retention and exportability of the approval trail after the contract ends. 1 2 6 7

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Configurable multi-step review per content type with per-stage role permissions, assigned owners, a required stage that blocks publishing, and automatic audit-log capture of workflow, stage and assignee changes are all evidenced, with SSO and audit logs on the Enterprise plan. I found no public information on inline comments or suggested edits, scheduled publishing tied to approval, or a stated retention period and export path for the approval trail after the contract ends. 6 7 7 2 1

Report an error

The Skeptic

Review workflows are the real thing: custom stages up to 200 per workflow, multiple workflows per content type, per-stage role permissions, assigned reviewers, a required stage that blocks publishing, and every stage or assignee change written to Audit Logs on the Enterprise plan. What keeps it short of the top band: we found no public information on inline comments, suggested edits or guest access for external writers, and the exact released version being preserved and exportable is not evidenced. 7 7 6 2

Report an error

The Head of Content

Content is stored as structure, not pages: collection and single types, repeatable components, dynamic zones, six relation types and custom fields, with internationalization enabled per content type and locales unlimited on every plan. The export story is unusually strong — a command-line export of content, configuration, relations, assets and schemas together, encrypted by default, in JSONL or directory form, with import and transfer commands beside it and a contractual self-service export in an industry-standard format. We found no public information on named translation-service connectors or per-locale workflow status, nor on version history being included in the export. 2 8 9 10 12 8

Report an error

The SME Marketer

The model is genuinely structured — components, dynamic zones, six relation types, custom fields — and internationalization is a per-content-type setting with unlimited locales on every plan, so my German and English content live side by side at no extra locale cost. Export is documented down to the command and its options, covering content, relations, assets, schemas and configuration in encrypted or JSONL form, and promised self-service in the terms; we found no public information on translation workflows with status per locale or named connectors to translation services. 2 8 9 12

Report an error

The Localisation Lead

A configurable model with reusable components, dynamic zones, six relation types and per-content-type internationalisation sits beside the strongest export story on paper: a documented command shipping entities, relations, schemas and assets encrypted or as an unpacked directory, import documented in return, a contractual self-service export guarantee and an MIT licence. Locales, however, are managed as translated entries toggled per content type — we found no public information on field-level localisation, translation status per locale, fallback languages or a named translation-service connector. 2 5 8 9 12

Report an error

The Web Engineer

The model is genuine structure — components, dynamic zones, six relation types, per-content-type internationalisation — and export is a first-class command line: a documented command covering configuration, entries, relations, assets and schemas, in an encrypted tar or JSONL lines, with import and transfer named alongside it and self-service export written into the terms. We found no public information on translation workflows with status per locale or named translation connectors, and version history in the export is not evidenced. 2 8 9 12 8

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

A no-code content model with components, dynamic zones and six relation types, per-content-type internationalization with unlimited locales, and a self-service export command covering schemas, content, relations and assets in documented formats make the repository genuinely portable, and the terms commit to self-service export in an industry-standard format. I found no public information on field-level locale fallback, per-locale translation workflow status, or named connectors to translation services, and version history is not stated to be part of the export. 8 9 8 2 12 10

Report an error

The Skeptic

The model is genuinely structured — collection and single types, repeatable components, dynamic zones, six relation types, per-content-type internationalisation with unlimited locales — and the export is a documented command covering content, relations, assets, schemas and configuration, with import and transfer alongside it and the contract promising self-service export in an industry-standard format. We found no public information on translation workflows with status per locale or named connectors to translation services, and version history is not part of the documented export. 8 9 8 12 2

Report an error

The Head of Content

Delivery is documented properly: REST and GraphQL APIs generated from the model, an OpenAPI specification, an interactive query builder and a client library, and webhooks across entry and media events with payload semantics, authentication headers and signature-verification guidance. A reviewed plugin marketplace, Live Preview on Growth, a CDN and region choice on the cloud offer, and the generally available MCP server widen the reach. We found no public information on published API rate limits, a public status page, or named connectors for the CRM and analytics tools a marketing stack already runs. 1 2 5 10 11

Report an error

The SME Marketer

The REST and GraphQL APIs are publicly documented in real depth, with an OpenAPI specification, a client library, and webhooks firing on every publish and change with fully populated payloads — for a headless setup feeding React or Next.js frontends, delivery is covered, and there is a marketplace of reviewed plugins plus Live Preview on the Growth plan. We found no public information naming CRM or analytics connectors, published rate limits, or a public status page, so I cannot see my existing stack on the other end. 1 10 11

Report an error

The Localisation Lead

Publicly documented REST and GraphQL APIs with an OpenAPI specification, a client library, webhooks on publish and change with security guidance, a reviewed plugin marketplace and Live Preview cover the delivery core. We found no public information on API rate limits, a versioning or deprecation policy, a status page, or named connections to the CRM, analytics and translation tools a marketing stack already runs — only frontend frameworks are named. 2 5 10 11

Report an error

The Web Engineer

The headless promise holds on the API itself: publicly documented REST and GraphQL endpoints generated per content type, an OpenAPI specification, a client library, and webhooks on publish and change that re-read the entry so payloads arrive fully populated, plus a marketplace of reviewed plugins. We found no public information on published rate limits, a public status page, performance data per piece pulled back from analytics, or named connectors for common CRM and analytics tools. 1 5 10 11

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

REST and GraphQL APIs are publicly documented with an OpenAPI specification, a client library and bearer-token authentication, webhooks fire on publish, change, unpublish and media events with payload and security detail, and a reviewed plugin marketplace plus named framework connectors are shown. I found no public information on published API rate limits, a public status page, per-piece analytics performance data pulled back into the platform, or an API deprecation and delivery policy. 10 11 5 1 2

Report an error

The Skeptic

The REST API is publicly documented down to filtering operators and pagination defaults, GraphQL and an OpenAPI specification exist, webhooks cover create, update, publish and unpublish with fully populated payloads, and there is a marketplace of reviewed plugins. The named connections are frontend frameworks — React, Next.js, Nuxt, Astro and the rest — while we found no public information on named CRM or analytics connectors, published rate limits or a public status page. 10 11 5 1

Report an error

The Head of Content

The features exist — a natural-language assistant that builds or edits content types on Growth, an MCP server letting AI clients manage content, a docs chatbot — and there are AI terms defining the integration as running through a third-party provider's API, plus a monthly credit allowance and a bring-your-own-AI-key topic in the documentation. But we found no public information on which models or providers are used, where prompts are processed, whether customer content trains them, who owns the output, or an admin switch per workspace. I could not put generated text into a legal-reviewed release on statements this thin. 2 8 12 13 13

Report an error

The SME Marketer

The AI terms say only that features run through "a third-party AI provider's API" without naming the provider, model, or processing location, and for my two questions — whether my drafts train anything and who owns what the assistant writes — we found no public information, nor any statement that an admin can switch the features off per workspace. What is concrete is commercial: a monthly credit allowance that resets without rollover, additional credits priced, notifications at 80, 90 and 100 percent of the allowance, and a bring-your-own-AI-key topic in the documentation. 12 8 13

Report an error

The Localisation Lead

The AI terms define the integration as driven by a third-party provider's API, Growth credits are priced at 1,000 credits a month with additional credits at +$1.50 per 100 credits, the content-type assistant is something you enable, and a bring-your-own-AI-key option is documented. No provider or model is named, though, and we found no public information on training use of customer content, where prompts are processed, prompt retention, EU AI Act labelling or who holds the rights to the output. 2 12 8 13

Report an error

The Web Engineer

AI is present and metered — a monthly credit allowance that resets each billing month and does not roll over, additional credits at +$1.50 per 100, notifications at 80, 90 and 100 percent, a bring-your-own-key topic in the documentation, and terms defining the integration as running through a third-party AI provider's API. We found no public information on which model or provider is used, whether customer content trains it, where prompts are processed, an admin switch for the features, or who holds rights to the output. 2 12 8 13

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

The AI terms say the features run through a third-party AI provider's API and price credits explicitly ("+$1.50 per 100 credits", "1,000 credits / month" on Growth, Enterprise "Not yet available"), but they name no provider, state no processing location, and give no retention of prompts and outputs in days. I found no public information on training on customer content being excluded in the terms, output ownership or indemnity, EU AI Act labelling, or admin switches per feature — a "Bring your own AI key" topic exists, but that is documentation, not the contractual exclusion I require. 12 2 13 13 8

Report an error

The Skeptic

The AI terms define the features as running "through a third-party AI provider's API" without naming any provider, credits are metered monthly with no rollover and priced at $1.50 per 100 with usage alerts at 80, 90 and 100 percent, and a "Bring your own AI key" topic exists in the documentation. On whether customer content trains models, where prompts are processed, switching the features off per workspace, or who owns generated output, we found no public information. 12 13 2 8

Report an error

The Head of Content

The provenance names Strapi Solutions SAS in Paris as data controller, yet nothing captured on the vendor's own pages confirms jurisdiction, ownership, hosting location or a single subprocessor — the published facts I can lean on are the privacy policy's retention periods, GDPR and SOC 2 claims, region selection for Strapi Cloud, and self-hosting 'for full control over data residency and compliance'. Self-hosting is a real escape hatch, but it stands in place of an evidenced chain from entity through CDN to AI provider, with no subprocessor list anywhere in the captures. 1 2 3 5

Report an error

The SME Marketer

The contracting entity is French — Strapi Solutions SAS of Paris, named as data controller in the privacy policy — self-hosting is offered explicitly for control over data residency and compliance, cloud customers choose their region, and GDPR compliance and SOC 2 certification are claimed on the site. We found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations and purposes, named hosting infrastructure, or where AI prompts are processed, which leaves the chain unaudited from a buyer's seat. 3 5

Report an error

The Localisation Lead

Self-hosting with the stated promise of full control over data residency, region selection on the cloud offer, GDPR-compliance and SOC 2 claims and stated personal-data retention periods give a European buyer real levers. The captured pages leave the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership and content hosting locations unconfirmed, however, and we found no public information on subprocessors or on where AI prompts are processed. 1 2 3 5

Report an error

The Web Engineer

Self-hosting is the strong card — running on your own servers for full control over data residency — and the privacy policy names a Paris entity as controller with concrete deletion periods, while the cloud offering stops at "choose your region". We found no public information on a subprocessor list, where AI prompts are processed, or a data processing agreement beyond GDPR and SOC 2 claims. 1 2 3 5

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Self-hosting on your own servers for full control over data residency and compliance, cloud region selection, and claimed GDPR compliance with SOC 2 are real levers, and the provenance pipeline names a French entity as data controller. The captured pages themselves confirm neither the contracting entity nor any hosting region for cloud content and assets, publish no subprocessor list with the AI providers on it, and state no AI processing location — I found no public information on these. 5 1 2 3

Report an error

The Skeptic

Self-hosting under the MIT licence and region selection on the cloud plan give a buyer real control over where content sits, but the captured pages do not state a default hosting location, and we found no public information on a published subprocessor list, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction as confirmed by the vendor's own pages, or on where AI prompts are processed. GDPR and SOC 2 are asserted in the footer with nothing behind them in the captures. 5 1 2 3

Report an error

The Head of Content

The limits that usually drive the bill are public and generous — unlimited content types, locales and roles on every plan, unlimited entries and API calls with 'no overages applied, if you need more resources, please upgrade to a paid plan' — and AI is priced explicitly: 1,000 credits / month on Growth, additional credits at +$1.50 per 100 credits, additional CMS seats at $15 / seat. But Enterprise, the plan where SSO, review workflows and audit logs live, is priced as custom and add-on, premium support and offline licensing carry no figure, and the base plan price does not appear in the captured pages, so annual cost is not computable from public pages alone. 2 2 7

Report an error

The SME Marketer

The numbers that decide my scenario are public: additional seats at $15 / seat on Growth, unlimited locales on every plan so my second language costs nothing extra, unlimited entries and API calls with the vendor stating no overages are applied, Strapi AI at 1,000 credits per month with additional credits at +$1.50 per 100 credits — and the gating is named, since review workflows, audit logs and SSO sit on Enterprise. What I still cannot compute is the annual bill, because we found no public information on the base plan prices, guest or agency contributor terms, or contract and renewal conditions. 2 2

Report an error

The Localisation Lead

Seats and limits are unusually clear: additional CMS seats at $15 / seat on Growth, unlimited content types, locales, roles and usage across the plans shown, credits priced per 100, and the Enterprise plan named as where review workflows, SSO and audit logs begin. We found no public information on base plan prices, though, Enterprise seats and premium support read 'Add-on' and 'Custom', and contract or renewal conditions are not shown on the captured pages. 2 12 2

Report an error

The Web Engineer

Where limits exist they are public and unusually generous — unlimited locales, content-types, roles and usage (entries, API calls), additional seats at $15 / seat on Growth, AI at 1,000 credits / month with +$1.50 per 100 credits — but we found no public information on the starting price of any paid plan, and enterprise, offline licensing and premium support appear as custom or add-on without figures. An annual cost for a given team is therefore not computable from the captured pages. 2 2

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Additional seat pricing of "$15 / seat" on Growth, AI credits priced at "+$1.50 per 100 credits" with "1,000 credits / month" included, unlimited locales, content types, roles, entries and API calls, and Enterprise named as where SSO, review workflows and audit logs begin give a buyer most of the cost picture. The captured pages show no base price for the Growth or Enterprise plans and no contract term, renewal conditions or cost of leaving, so the annual cost for a given team cannot be computed from public pages alone. 2 2 12

Report an error

The Skeptic

The pricing page does state its limits — unlimited content types, locales, roles and usage with "no overages applied", additional seats at $15 per seat, and AI at 1,000 credits a month plus $1.50 per 100 — and a seat is defined precisely. But the captured pricing pages show no base plan price, Enterprise is presented as an add-on conversation, and Premium Support and Offline Licensing carry no public price, so a buyer can price the extras and not the plan itself. 2 2

Report an error