Anchor CMS vs Keystatic
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted content management systems options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Anchor CMS
Lightweight blogging-focused CMS
VS
Keystatic
Git-based CMS for Markdown and structured content
| Feature | Anchor CMS | Keystatic |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Content Management Systems | Content Management Systems |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | PHP | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, docker, source | source, docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,298 | ★ 2,262 |
| First released | 2012 | 2023 |
| Replaces | WordPress | Contentful, Netlify CMS |
Why pick each one
Choose Keystatic if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (2.3k GitHub stars)
- Written in TypeScript
Frequently asked questions
Is Anchor CMS or Keystatic better?
Anchor CMS is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Keystatic if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Anchor CMS and Keystatic free and open-source?
Yes. Anchor CMS is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Keystatic under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Anchor CMS and Keystatic with Docker?
Anchor CMS: yes. Keystatic: yes.