Ghost vs Monstra
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?
Ghost
Professional publishing platform for blogs and newsletters
VS
Monstra
Lightweight flat-file CMS that needs no database
| Feature | Ghost | Monstra |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Content Management Systems | Content Management Systems |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 54,707 | ★ 389 |
| First released | 2013 | 2012 |
| Replaces | WordPress, Substack, Medium | WordPress |
Why pick each one
Choose Ghost if…
- Excellent for newsletters and memberships
- Clean, fast publishing experience
Choose Monstra if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Written in PHP
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Ghost or Monstra better?
Neither is universally better. Ghost has the larger community, while Monstra is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Ghost and Monstra free and open-source?
Yes. Ghost is licensed under MIT and Monstra under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Ghost and Monstra with Docker?
Ghost: yes. Monstra: check the project docs for container support.