CommonSpot vs. Concrete CMS

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
CommonSpot
Score 7.0 out of 10
N/A
CommonSpot is a Web platform that includes a content management system, an application development framework, marketing solutions, and social media features from PaperThin, Inc, a privately held, MA-based company. PaperThin's customers span multiple industries, including: government, healthcare, higher education, and association/non-profit sectors.N/A
Concrete CMS
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
Concrete CMS (formerly Concrete5) is a free and open source, PHP built content management system for content on the web and also for intranets. It is optimized to support the creation of online magazines and newspapers.N/A
Pricing
CommonSpotConcrete CMS
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CommonSpotConcrete CMS
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
CommonSpotConcrete CMS
Features
CommonSpotConcrete CMS
Security
Comparison of Security features of Product A and Product B
CommonSpot
7.0
Ratings
14% below category average
Concrete CMS
9.5
Ratings
16% above category average
Role-based user permissions7.00 Ratings9.50 Ratings
Web Content Creation
Comparison of Web Content Creation features of Product A and Product B
CommonSpot
6.3
Ratings
20% below category average
Concrete CMS
8.4
Ratings
8% above category average
Code quality / cleanliness6.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Admin section6.50 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Page templates7.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Library of website themes7.00 Ratings4.20 Ratings
Publishing workflow7.00 Ratings7.70 Ratings
Form generator4.00 Ratings6.60 Ratings
WYSIWYG editor00 Ratings9.30 Ratings
Mobile optimization / responsive design00 Ratings9.70 Ratings
Web Content Management
Comparison of Web Content Management features of Product A and Product B
CommonSpot
7.7
Ratings
5% above category average
Concrete CMS
6.9
Ratings
6% below category average
Content taxonomy7.50 Ratings8.90 Ratings
SEO support7.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Bulk management8.00 Ratings6.00 Ratings
Availability / breadth of extensions7.00 Ratings5.40 Ratings
Community / comment management9.00 Ratings5.40 Ratings
Platform & Infrastructure
Comparison of Platform & Infrastructure features of Product A and Product B
CommonSpot
-
Ratings
Concrete CMS
9.7
Ratings
24% above category average
API00 Ratings9.70 Ratings
Internationalization / multi-language00 Ratings9.70 Ratings
Best Alternatives
CommonSpotConcrete CMS
Small Businesses
ManageWP
ManageWP
Score 10.0 out of 10
ManageWP
ManageWP
Score 10.0 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
RWS Tridion Sites
RWS Tridion Sites
Score 9.0 out of 10
RWS Tridion Sites
RWS Tridion Sites
Score 9.0 out of 10
Enterprises
RWS Tridion Sites
RWS Tridion Sites
Score 9.0 out of 10
RWS Tridion Sites
RWS Tridion Sites
Score 9.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
CommonSpotConcrete CMS
Likelihood to Recommend
7.0
(0 ratings)
9.2
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.8
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
CommonSpotConcrete CMS
Likelihood to Recommend
I do actually think CommonSpot is pretty well suited when the organization that you work for requires very specific parameters on site design. It was very clear what could be used and what could not in the design of individual department pages. The other thing I think CommonSpot is best suited for is website content management done by people with little or no website content management experience. It's very intuitive and easy to use and thus, easy to train people on.
Read full review
Concrete5 is perfect for a website that needs to be regularly updated without accessing the code, whether that be because a developer created your site for you, or because you yourself are a developer who wants to keep the time spent on updates down.
In my experience, it's less useful for modern web apps such as PWAs that would benefit more from technologies such as React and Vue.
Read full review
Pros
  • I think CommonSpot's greatest strength is its ease of use. It's relatively intuitive in it's usage, so it therefore makes it easy to train new people to use it.
  • Within my usage of it, our options were limited, which again added to it's ease of use.
Read full review
  • Concrete5 has a modular editing system, so you can edit the pages without having knowledge of coding. You just pick the module you want to insert or edit and click where you want it to go.
  • You are able to edit modules in an HTML format if you would like to, so if you have the knowledge you can have even more control over your modules.
  • You can also edit entire page themes by selecting them from the page layout menu. This allows you a greater versatility of the pages on your site.
Read full review
Cons
  • Commonspot needs to improve on its authoring feature. It is impossible to author on more than one page at a time . (One must always click on "View work on all changes") before switching between pages otherwise, the changes will not be saved.
  • CommonSpot does not support sharing the definition of any custom element or any template layouts. Therefore, one must recreate these in each site.
  • In Commonspot, a user who has to manage content in multiple sites will have to log in to each site to see and act on any actions.
Read full review
  • Concrete5.6 websites have no good path to migrate to 5.7, short of manual content migration. This is a big problem and affected the user community negatively.
  • Some features that were available as paid add-ons in 5.6, such as discussion forums and e-commerce shopping cart, are missing from newer versions 5.7/5.8.
  • Starting to develop add-ons and customizations for Concrete5 can be challenging as 5.7/5.8 documentation is not yet complete.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
I have had nothing but good experiences with Concrete5. I have used it on several client websites and even several of my own sites. It is the leading CMS I will go to if I have a need to dynamically update content on a website by people who are typically untrained. They have solved every angst I had with the other solutions I have evaluated in the past and continue to be the simplest to implement and customize.
Read full review
Usability
I had no previous background in content management, and found it very easy to use. If I could figure it out, I am pretty certain that just about anyone else could as well.
Read full review
Although there is a slight learning curve (as with any software), it is very easy to use once you get a hold of it. It is easy to upload and manage files (and other digital assets), and the drag-n-drop interface on the front-end is easy for end-users to understand
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
No answers on this topic
Since it's not tied to a central server (other than for authorizing updates and assigning licenses to specific sites), it's available pretty much 100% of the time.
Read full review
Performance
No answers on this topic
The site works extremely well, the front end flies, searches and form submissions are very fast indeed. The reason its a 9 not a ten? the back end can be a little slow at times, and this is unfair, because for the backend to be so amazing, it has to do a huge amount of work!
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
Concrete5 is open-source and has an incredibly strong, polite, and supportive community. You can get an answer to nearly anything you want to do with Concrete5 by googling for it, searching the Concrete5 discussion forums or stack overflow, or posting your question to the forum. Members are very courteous and do not look down on those with less knowledge. And answers are always quick, informative, and supportive.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
It's important that any CMS is implemented by a skilled developer. Content management is not a commodity. One of the keys I've found with Concrete5 is to create a homogenous content-entry method (e.g. focus on in-context editing OR focus on using the Composer feature). This seems to make it more likely that site editors will be able to easily come back to editing after a layoff without having to "remember" too much.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Commonspot works in tandem with Zendesk very well to accomplish tasks an an efficient manner.
Read full review
I didn't have to spend too much time learning Concrete CMS, whereas I had to spend a long time learning other CMSs. After struggling to develop a plugin for WordPress, developing an add-on for Concrete CMS was piece of cake thanks to many available APIs. Making custom themes and blocks was much easier than WordPress.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Better customer service
  • Improved accountability as it regards tracking the tasks assigned to which employee
  • Improved accountability led to increased employee efficiency
Read full review
  • Even though the Concrete5 community is growing, it's still not up to the level as some of the other WCMS communities.
  • More detailed statistics with historical data could be provided by the system.
  • Concrete5 hihgly depends on Jquery. It makes it hard to upgrade the javascript library since the control panel depends on it.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Concrete CMS Screenshots

Screenshot of In-context editing is simple to understandScreenshot of Change text just like a word processorScreenshot of Versioning and workflow built on top of powerful permissionsScreenshot of Flexible backend to power complex communities and intranets.