Anchor CMS vs Pico
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?
| Feature | Anchor CMS | Pico |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Content Management Systems | Content Management Systems |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | PHP | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, docker, source | bare-metal, docker, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,298 | ★ 3,904 |
| First released | 2012 | 2012 |
| Replaces | WordPress | WordPress |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is Anchor CMS or Pico better?
Neither is universally better. Pico has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Anchor CMS and Pico free and open-source?
Yes. Anchor CMS is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Pico under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Anchor CMS and Pico with Docker?
Anchor CMS: yes. Pico: yes.