Structure without a schema file
Adding a field or a collection is a request, not a code change, a pull request, and a deploy. The people who need the field can ask for it.
Compare
Modulify vs Sanity
Sanity is a content backend built for developers, with schemas defined in code, a customisable editing environment, and a query language that is genuinely a pleasure to use. It assumes you are building the front end. Modulify assumes you want a website: the pages, the content structure, the hosting, and the publishing arriving together, editable by people who do not write code.
Modulify and Sanity, side by side
Both are good. They expect very different things from your team.
| Capability | Modulify | Sanity |
|---|---|---|
| What it gives you | A complete site plus the CMS behind it, hosted and publishable. | A content backend and editing environment. The site is yours to build. |
| Defining the content model | Describe what you need and the structure is created for you. | Schemas written in code, versioned with your project. |
| Who can change the structure | Anyone, by asking. No schema file to edit and deploy. | A developer, since the schema lives in the codebase. |
| Customising the editor | Consistent field types across every collection, not customisable. | Highly customisable. You can build bespoke editing experiences. |
| Querying content | Handled by the platform; SQL is available underneath. | GROQ is expressive and well liked by the developers who use it. |
| Hosting and publishing | Included, with a custom domain and publish history. | Not its job. You deploy the front end yourself. |
What it gives you
ModulifyA complete site plus the CMS behind it, hosted and publishable.
SanityA content backend and editing environment. The site is yours to build.
Defining the content model
ModulifyDescribe what you need and the structure is created for you.
SanitySchemas written in code, versioned with your project.
Who can change the structure
ModulifyAnyone, by asking. No schema file to edit and deploy.
SanityA developer, since the schema lives in the codebase.
Customising the editor
ModulifyConsistent field types across every collection, not customisable.
SanityHighly customisable. You can build bespoke editing experiences.
Querying content
ModulifyHandled by the platform; SQL is available underneath.
SanityGROQ is expressive and well liked by the developers who use it.
Hosting and publishing
ModulifyIncluded, with a custom domain and publish history.
SanityNot its job. You deploy the front end yourself.
This comparison reflects each product’s publicly stated positioning and our own reading of where it is strongest. Sanity is a trademark of its owner and is not affiliated with Modulify. Products change quickly, so check anything that would decide your choice before you commit to it.
Where Modulify pulls ahead
Where not needing a developer changes the shape of the project.
The site comes with it
Pages, navigation, and design arrive alongside the content model, so there is no stage where the content is ready and nothing renders it.
Live in an afternoon
Hosting, a custom domain, and publishing are part of the platform rather than the next project after the CMS is configured.
A content backend is half a website
The other half is the part that takes the time.
Sanity does its half extremely well, and teams with front-end developers get a lot from it: schemas in version control, a customisable studio, and a query language that fits how they think. What it does not do is give you a site. Someone still designs it, builds it, hosts it, and keeps it consistent as it grows. If you have that person, Sanity is an excellent choice. If you do not, you need a platform rather than a backend.
Where Sanity is the better choice
Where Sanity is the better answer.
Schemas as code
Content structure lives in version control, reviewed like any other change and deployed with the project. For engineering teams that is exactly right.
A studio you can shape
The editing environment is customisable to a degree no integrated platform matches, which matters when the editorial workflow is unusual.
Content for more than a site
If the same content feeds apps, products, and third parties, a dedicated backend is the right architecture, and we would not argue otherwise.
What comes with a Modulify site
Included from the free plan up, not sold as separate services.
1place for design, content, data, and publishing
100+connectors to build against your real data
$0to start, with a live subdomain, database, and analytics
Modulify vs Sanity, answered
What teams ask when they are deciding between the two.
If your content feeds one website, usually yes, and you also get the site, hosting, and publishing. If it feeds multiple applications and channels, a dedicated content backend like Sanity is the better architecture.
Collections support single and multi references, rich text, images and galleries, files, colours, and per-language variants of any text field. What you cannot do is write a custom schema file or build a bespoke editing UI, which is where Sanity goes further.
Anyone, by asking. The structure is created for you rather than defined in a schema file, which removes the developer from the loop but also means the structure is not versioned in your repository.
Yes, as CSV, JSON, or SQL, with your files exportable too. Nothing about the content is locked in.
The content model and the site, together
Describe what you are building and get both, without a schema file or a deploy.
Start building