Published on 04/24/25
Headless: a modern approach to the web
At the advent of the World Wide Web just over thirty years ago, sites were mainly static, designed and written by hand in plain HTML. The need for content management and interactivity evolved into Web 2.0.
CMS such as WordPress and Drupal then emerged, enabling users to create and manage their content, easily and without relying on special technical skills. These all-in-one solutions dominated the market for many years, offering simple, limited interfaces at first, then advanced page layout and content sharing functionalities. On the other hand, these CMS have one flaw: they are monolithic. This means that they manage both the back-end, i.e. the administration interface and data management, and the front-end, i.e. the generation and presentation of pages to visitors.
Nowadays, with the multiplication of digital platforms and uses, companies are looking for more flexible solutions, leading to the emergence of the headless concept. The Headless concept is gaining in popularity because this architecture completely decouples the front-end from the back-end, offering greater flexibility to developers and businesses alike.
However, in an imperfect world, there is no such thing as a perfect solution, and this approach also presents certain challenges...
What is headless?
Headless is a Web solution architecture based on a strict separation between :
- the front-end, which is publicly visible, i.e. the interface presented to the user.
- the back-end, that which is publicly invisible, i.e. the management of pages, data and business logic.
In concrete terms, the Web platform's content and data are stored in a content management system (the famous CMS) with the support of a database and a resource storage service (images, files, etc.), then exposed through an API, most often of the REST type, sometimes GraphQL, to be consumed by various front-ends dedicated to visitors (website, e-commerce site, mobile application, etc).
To sum up and simplify as much as possible:
- In traditional CMS, front-end and back-end are a single system on a single environment.
- In CMS Headless, the front-end and back-end are distinct and independent sub-systems; the back-end will reside on its own environment, and the front-ends (because there can be several) will reside on their own environments. These systems will communicate via an API and speak the same language, exchanging the information and resources they need to display to users.
This headless organization has a number of advantages, but also a few disadvantages that you need to bear in mind when making the right design choices for your website or platform.
In concrete terms, the Web platform's content and data are stored in a content management system (the famous CMS!).
Some advantages of headless design
The headless approach has a number of advantages. It would obviously be an illusion to list them all, especially as some depend on the project context.
Here, in our opinion and experience, are the main advantages of the Headless approach.
Flexibility
If we had to choose just one advantage, it would be this. Headless offers developers the freedom to choose the front-end technologies best suited to their needs. Whether it's React, Vue.js, Angular, or simply specific development, anything is possible.
Just remember that the front-end doesn't depend at all on the technologies used by the back-end. Only the way in which the two worlds communicate needs to be common, and the front-end simply needs to know how to talk to the back-end (REST, WebServices, etc.) and how to exploit the available API (API routes and terminations).
This way of strictly separating the two worlds, front-end and back-end, enables you to offer tailored experiences to your users, potentially spreading them over several different sites, but ultimately exploiting a single data source. This approach also facilitates platform redesigns, since you can rewrite a new front-end with a totally different graphic charter and technologies without ever having to modify the back-end.
Omnichannel
This point is the direct corollary of the previous one. Using an API as a single data source means that a single content source can feed several distinct platforms (website, mobile application, etc.). This approach drastically simplifies content management and, above all, ensures total consistency across all your channels.
Scalability
Scalability is the second derivative of the previous two points; companies can evolve their architecture without having to question their entire system. This architecture makes it easier to integrate new functionalities, or even new services, without disrupting the existing system, thus guaranteeing continuity of the user experience and, as we too often forget, the peace of mind of the technical teams in charge of maintaining and monitoring the system.
Security
Let's not forget that the security of IT systems is one of the major challenges of our time. With the front-end and back-end clearly distinct and independent, it becomes more difficult for attackers to exploit vulnerabilities as they are accustomed to doing with a traditional CMS. By isolating the back-end as much as possible, and adding very strict security rules on the front-end, security goes up a notch. For example: APIs can be secured by their routes independently of the content management system, which can only be opened to certain IP addresses, allowing us to make it more easily invisible to potential attackers.
Performance
Headlessness often enables us to optimize performance to some extent by using lightweight, modern front-end solutions, thus reducing loading times and improving the user experience. As the back-end is decoupled from the front-end, it is possible to run the back-end on a dedicated infrastructure and the front-ends on several instances, also dedicated, thus favoring and simplifying horizontal scaling (increasing the number of servers) or vertical scaling (increasing the resources dedicated to the servers).
Some disadvantages of Headless
As with any technical solution, the headless approach has its share of drawbacks.
In our opinion and experience, here are the main drawbacks of the headless approach.
Complexity
Unlike traditional monolithic CMS, which offer all-in-one solutions, a Headless project requires a tailor-made architecture. You need to think carefully beforehand about how to structure your data, how to expose it, configure APIs, choose a front-end framework and develop this part specifically, and finally ensure communication between the various elements.
Cost
Setting up a Headless architecture requires more advanced technical skills than a traditional monolithic CMS. It's no longer just a matter of installing a more or less generic off-the-shelf system, configuring a theme and you're done. As this type of solution is more demanding, it can entail additional development, maintenance and hosting costs.
No native preview
In a traditional CMS, content editors can usually see in real time what their publication will look like. With a Headless CMS, this functionality is more difficult to implement due to the strict separation between front-end and back-end, and generally requires tools, add-ons or even specific developments to be able to preview the final result as you would expect.
Permission and access management
As content is exposed via APIs, these need to be properly secured to prevent any leakage of information or malicious or unauthorized exploitation of your content. Managing user rights and roles therefore becomes a little more complex than with a traditional CMS, due to this strict separation between front-end and back-end.
Headless solutions
There's no question of drawing up an exhaustive list of Headless solutions, but here are a few that might interest you.
Strapi
Probably the hottest headless CMS around. Strapi is the Headless CMS par excellence. It's an open-source project, based on Node-JS and written in JavaScript and TypeScript.
Designed to be API-first, it enables content to be created, managed and distributed using REST or GraphQL APIs. Of course, it also offers content management, secure access, the ability to customize any type of content and, above all, a large and very active community.
WordPress and Drupal
It may come as a surprise, but the legendary and historically monolithic open-source solutions WordPress and Drupal now offer the possibility of behaving as a headless CMS.
This brings many advantages, such as abundantly available resources, very large and very active communities, and management interfaces that are already well known and mastered by developers.
The risk, however, would be the temptation to create a hybrid system between monolithic and headless, and thus lose out on both advantages by obtaining a solution that is difficult to maintain.
It's a choice you'll have to consider carefully for your project, but one that could turn out to be a winning one!
And did you know? The article you're reading is delivered by a solution we designed on a Drupal configured in Headless mode and a Next-JS front-end with server-side rendering to prioritize SEO.
Proprietary solutions
There are a number of proprietary Headless CMS, most often available in SaaS mode.
Here are a few references:
These solutions offer a number of advantages, such as modules for connecting to CRM, ERP, PIM, e-commerce platforms, etc., and most often offer SaaS hosting (which can be extremely costly if you're not careful).
These solutions can be considered and, in some cases, accelerated. On the other hand, as they are proprietary, they can turn you into a captive user, making migration to other solutions extremely complicated, if not very costly.
How do you choose?
Here's the tricky part: there are no hard and fast rules, since everything depends on your functional, business and technical challenges.
However, here are a few simple rules and a method that can help you quickly evaluate your choice:
- If you want to create a website or blog, but have no particular need to share content and resources with other systems, then a traditional CMS may be right for you.
- If you want to build a website, possibly with a blog, perhaps with several versions of the site depending on users, countries or languages, mini-sites or event pages, but all sharing the same content to avoid duplication, then the Headless approach is most likely better suited to your needs.
In any case, keep in mind that it's all in the thickness of the line, as you need to anticipate needs and technical complexity, associated costs and so on.
Conclusion
The headless approach offers many advantages, the most obvious being flexibility and omnichannel experience. On the other hand, it requires greater technical expertise and resources, and can therefore be more costly to implement and maintain. All these factors need to be weighed up against the expected ROI when considering your project.
The decision to adopt a Headless architecture should be based on project-specific needs and available skills. If you're looking for a solution that's scalable and adaptable to different media, Headless can be a highly relevant option. On the other hand, for simpler needs, a traditional CMS may be more than sufficient.
In short, there's no such thing as a "silver bullet"; your choice must be guided by a solid, objective study of your needs and the stakes involved in your project, and above all never be based on subjective criteria such as the fashion of the moment, better known as "Hype Driven Development".