Markdown files in Git vs Strapi
Both are alternatives to Contentful. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Strapi vs Markdown files in Git — same comparison, one verdict.
Both are headless cms tools with the same broad shape, but Markdown files in Git scores 99 against Strapi's 86 on data ownership and exit cost — the gap is in how easily you could leave.
Markdown files in Git
For developer-owned content, the CMS may be the thing to remove.
Worth asking before choosing any of the above: does non-technical staff actually edit this content? A great many headless CMS deployments serve documentation and marketing pages maintained entirely by developers — content that could be Markdown files in the repository, reviewed in pull requests, deployed by CI, with no server, no API call metering and no vendor. Every modern framework reads Markdown natively. This is not a product; it is a scope check, and it is the right answer more often than the category admits.
Strapi
The established open headless CMS, with the largest community.
Strapi is the most widely deployed open-source headless CMS: a content-type builder, REST and GraphQL APIs, role-based permissions, internationalisation and a large plugin marketplace. Around 73k stars. It is the safe choice in the sense that most problems you hit have already been asked about somewhere. Licensing is mixed and worth checking against your needs: the core is MIT, but a number of enterprise features — SSO, audit logs, advanced permissions — sit under a separate commercial licence.
Side by side
6 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| Markdown files in Git | Strapi | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 99 | 86 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | N/A — plain files in your own repository | MIT core, with enterprise features under a separate commercial licence |
| Pricing | Free. There is nothing to host. | Community edition free and self-hostable. Enterprise and Cloud tiers are paid. |
Markdown files in Git edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.
Weighing both against staying on Contentful? Is Contentful free? What it actually costs →
Markdown files in Git
Strengths
- +No CMS, no database, no API, no per-record billing — nothing to run
- +Content reviewed in pull requests alongside the code it describes
- +Complete version history for free
- +Every modern framework reads Markdown natively
Trade-offs
- −Non-technical editors cannot realistically contribute
- −No media library or scheduled publishing
- −Structured, relational content becomes awkward quickly
- −Wrong answer the moment a marketing team needs access
Strapi
Strengths
- +Largest community and plugin ecosystem of any open headless CMS
- +Content-type builder that non-developers can use
- +REST and GraphQL out of the box
- +Mature, with years of production deployments
Trade-offs
- −SSO, audit logs and advanced permissions are commercial
- −Major version upgrades have been disruptive historically
- −Heavier to run than Payload
- −Single-vendor governance
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Markdown files in Git
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and no CMS, no database, no API, no per-record billing — nothing to run.
Choose Strapi
if largest community and plugin ecosystem of any open headless CMS.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — non-technical editors cannot realistically contribute, and sSO, audit logs and advanced permissions are commercial. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
Markdown files in Git vs Strapi — common questions
Is Markdown files in Git a better fit than Strapi for headless cms?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Markdown files in Git scores 99 to Strapi's 86 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Strapi earns its place on a different axis — largest community and plugin ecosystem of any open headless CMS. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Markdown files in Git keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Strapi is still self-hostable, so the files stay on your server either way — but it is not local-first by design, so check what its export produces before you rely on it.
Can I self-host Markdown files in Git or Strapi?
Both can be self-hosted. The difference is what it costs you in time rather than whether it is possible — see the setup and maintenance rows above.
Are Markdown files in Git and Strapi both alternatives to Contentful?
Yes — both appear in our Contentful comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Contentful and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-08-05. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.