Ghost vs Typemill
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
Typemill
Author-friendly flat-file-cms with a visual markdown editor based on
| Feature | Ghost | Typemill |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Content Management Systems | Content Management Systems |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | JavaScript | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, source | bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 54,707 | ★ 612 |
| First released | 2013 | 2026 |
| Replaces | WordPress, Substack, Medium | — |
Why pick each one
Choose Ghost if…
- Excellent for newsletters and memberships
- Clean, fast publishing experience
Choose Typemill if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Written in JavaScript
- Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Ghost or Typemill better?
Neither is universally better. Ghost has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Ghost and Typemill free and open-source?
Yes. Ghost is licensed under MIT and Typemill under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Ghost and Typemill with Docker?
Ghost: yes. Typemill: check the project docs for container support.