Directus vs Ghost
Both are alternatives to Contentful. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Ghost vs Directus — same comparison, one verdict.
Directus
TOP PICKAn instant API and admin app over any SQL database you already have.
Directus takes a different route: point it at a SQL database — new or existing, with your own schema — and it generates a REST and GraphQL API plus an admin interface on top, without owning or altering your data model. That matters most for the very common case where content already lives in a database that other systems also use. Around 37k stars. The licence needs stating precisely: Directus uses the Business Source License 1.1, which converts to GPL after a delay and is free below a revenue threshold — source-available rather than open source, despite frequent mislabelling.
Ghost
If it is a publication rather than an app, this is probably the answer.
Ghost is a publishing platform rather than a general content API: posts, pages, newsletters, memberships and paid subscriptions, with an editor writers genuinely like. MIT, around 55k stars, run by a non-profit foundation. It is listed because a real share of teams evaluating a headless CMS are building a blog or a publication, and for that job a purpose-built tool with newsletters and payments already included beats assembling the same thing from a content API and three integrations.
Side by side
| Directus | Ghost | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty Score | 72 | 95 |
| Open source | No | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first | Yes | Yes |
| License | Business Source License 1.1 (source-available; free under a revenue threshold, converts to GPL in time) | MIT |
| Pricing | Free to self-host under the BSL revenue threshold. Directus Cloud and commercial licences are paid. | Free and open source to self-host. Ghost(Pro) hosting is paid. |
Directus is Macrostack's recommended Contentful alternative, so it's our pick here.
Directus
Strengths
- +Works over an existing SQL database without changing your schema
- +Instant REST and GraphQL APIs plus a genuinely good admin interface
- +Your data stays in your own database, readable by anything else
- +No per-record or per-API-call metering
Trade-offs
- −Business Source License — not open source, and commonly mislabelled
- −A revenue threshold applies before a commercial licence is needed
- −Self-hosting means running a database and an application server
- −Fewer enterprise workflow features than Contentful
Ghost
Strengths
- +MIT, run by a non-profit foundation — no vendor to change terms
- +Newsletters, memberships and paid subscriptions built in
- +The best writing and editing experience in this comparison
- +Can be used headlessly via its Content API
Trade-offs
- −Built for publications, not general structured content
- −Content modelling is far less flexible than Directus or Strapi
- −Node and MySQL to operate when self-hosted
- −Wrong tool for an application's content layer
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-08-05. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.