Do you still need a classic CMS today, or is a no-code/builder-based website enough?

The choice between a classic CMS and a no-code/builder solution isn't a question of tools, but a strategic decision. As a general rule: the system should support your requirements for content, SEO and scaling - not the other way round. No-code and builder solutions are particularly suited when: rapid implementation and flexibility are the priority; content is manageable in scope; little custom logic or integration is needed; design and time-to-market are prioritised.

Typical use cases include: smaller websites or web business cards; individual landing pages (e. g. to validate new products or offers); temporary campaigns or tests.

An additional benefit arises in combination with so-called "vibe coding" approaches: AI is used to quickly develop functional prototypes, dummies or MVPs that can be tested early and improved iteratively. This approach makes it possible to validate ideas quickly and cost-effectively before transferring them to stable, scalable systems. Classic CMS platforms have the advantage when: large volumes of content need to be managed in a structured way; complex SEO requirements exist (e.

g. large site structures, templates); multiple editors or workflows are involved; long-term scalability and extensibility are important. A common mistake is making this decision on purely technological grounds.

In practice, problems usually arise when the system doesn't match the content and business requirements. It's also worth noting that many no-code and builder solutions - depending on use and provider - come with additional limitations. These include, for example: limited SEO capabilities (e.

g. for structured data or technical adjustments); limited integrations and extensibility; dependency on the provider (vendor lock-in); potential data protection and hosting questions. These points aren't fundamentally problematic but can become relevant as requirements grow.

In short: no-code and vibe coding are particularly suited to quick tests, MVPs and flexible use cases. A CMS offers more structure, control and long-term scalability - what matters is the specific use case and the stage of the project.