Ghost vs Umbraco

Ghost and Umbraco are both CMS options. Here's how they compare on official platforms, features, and positioning — sourced from each vendor's own site, not from ratings or reviews.

Side-by-side summary

ComparingGhostUmbraco

CategoryCMSCMS

Alternatives tracked23

PlatformsWebWeb, Self-hosted

Best for Ghost

Ghost positions itself for creators (YouTubers, bloggers, podcasters, musicians), publishers/journalists, businesses running content marketing, and developers.

Best for Umbraco

.NET development teams and editors who want an open-source, editor-friendly CMS built on the latest .NET technology.

Feature comparison

Every feature listed here comes directly from each vendor's own official site.

Ghost

Custom site design/branding control
Rich publishing editor (galleries, video, audio, embeds)
Native email newsletter delivery with segmentation
Membership and paid-subscription management
Native analytics
0% payment processing fees (via Stripe integration)

Umbraco

Content modeling with schema definition and property editor configuration
Editor-friendly publishing workflows and user management
Integrated media management system
Multilingual and localization configuration for international sites
Extensible backoffice with server-side customization and package building
Frontend developer APIs for headless and coupled integrations
Built on the latest .NET technology
Umbraco Cloud managed hosting option

Pros and cons

Ghost

Pros

Custom site design/branding control
Rich publishing editor (galleries, video, audio, embeds)
Native email newsletter delivery with segmentation
Membership and paid-subscription management
Native analytics
0% payment processing fees (via Stripe integration)

Cons

We don't publish a "cons" list for either product. No vendor's official site documents its own product's weaknesses, so there's no sourced basis for one — and we'd rather say that plainly than invent one.

Umbraco

Pros

Content modeling with schema definition and property editor configuration
Editor-friendly publishing workflows and user management
Integrated media management system
Multilingual and localization configuration for international sites
Extensible backoffice with server-side customization and package building
Frontend developer APIs for headless and coupled integrations
Built on the latest .NET technology
Umbraco Cloud managed hosting option

Cons

Key differences

Ghost lists Custom site design/branding control, Rich publishing editor (galleries, video, audio, embeds), Native email newsletter delivery with segmentation, Membership and paid-subscription management, Native analytics, 0% payment processing fees (via Stripe integration) that Umbraco doesn't list.
Umbraco lists Content modeling with schema definition and property editor configuration, Editor-friendly publishing workflows and user management, Integrated media management system, Multilingual and localization configuration for international sites, Extensible backoffice with server-side customization and package building, Frontend developer APIs for headless and coupled integrations, Built on the latest .NET technology, Umbraco Cloud managed hosting option that Ghost doesn't list.
Umbraco supports Self-hosted, which Ghost doesn't list.

Choose Ghost if…

Choose Ghost if this fits: Ghost positions itself for creators (YouTubers, bloggers, podcasters, musicians), publishers/journalists, businesses running content marketing, and developers.

Choose Umbraco if…

Choose Umbraco if this fits: .NET development teams and editors who want an open-source, editor-friendly CMS built on the latest .NET technology.

Facts on this page are sourced from each vendor's official site (linked below), not from ratings or reviews. Products change — verify anything that matters to your decision directly on the vendor's own site before switching. See our Disclaimer and Sources Policy.