Keystatic vs Squidex
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?
Keystatic
Git-based CMS for Markdown and structured content
VS
Squidex
Headless CMS, based on MongoDB, CQRS and Event Sourcing
| Feature | Keystatic | Squidex |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Content Management Systems | Content Management Systems |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | C# |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | source, docker | bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 2,262 | ★ 2,509 |
| First released | 2023 | 2026 |
| Replaces | 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
Choose Squidex if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Active community (2.5k GitHub stars)
- Written in C#
- Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Keystatic or Squidex better?
Neither is universally better. Squidex has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Keystatic and Squidex free and open-source?
Yes. Keystatic is licensed under MIT and Squidex under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Keystatic and Squidex with Docker?
Keystatic: yes. Squidex: check the project docs for container support.