Keystone 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?
Keystone
Headless CMS framework with a powerful GraphQL API
VS
Monstra
Lightweight flat-file CMS that needs no database
| Feature | Keystone | Monstra |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Content Management Systems | Content Management Systems |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | TypeScript | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 9,938 | ★ 389 |
| First released | 2013 | 2012 |
| Replaces | Contentful, Strapi | WordPress |
Why pick each one
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 Keystone or Monstra better?
Neither is universally better. Keystone 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 Keystone and Monstra free and open-source?
Yes. Keystone is licensed under MIT and Monstra under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Keystone and Monstra with Docker?
Keystone: yes. Monstra: check the project docs for container support.