CKEditor 5 vs TinyMCE: two finished editors, two GPL-or-commercial licences

The same product shape

Many comparisons in this dataset set a framework against a finished product. This one does not. CKEditor 5 and TinyMCE both install as a working editor with a toolbar, both extend through plugins, both publish their own React, Vue and Angular packages, and both store HTML.

They also share a licensing position they did not always share. CKEditor 5 has offered GPL-2.0-or-later since its first npm release in 2018, alongside commercial terms. TinyMCE was MIT through 6.x, became GPL-2.0-or-later in 7.0.0, and from 8.3.0 offers GPL-2.0-or-later or its self-hosted commercial agreement. For a closed-source product, both now mean a commercial contract.

So the decision comes down to weight, price shape, interface and which premium features you need.

Where CKEditor 5 wins

Less than half the JavaScript. 161.2 kB gzip against 393.9 kB in our measurements, though the two entries are not identical configurations — CKEditor's includes four plugins, TinyMCE's none.

Fewer lines to start. Nine lines in our benchmark application against fourteen, because TinyMCE's bundling guide requires separate icon, theme, model and skin imports.

A documented widget framework. The framework tutorials build custom block widgets with their own model and view, which suits products with structured content inside rich text.

Documented localisation breadth. 41 fully translated UI languages and right-to-left support out of the box.

Where TinyMCE wins

A lower vendor-published entry price. Essential at $79 per month paid annually against CKEditor 5's $144 on annual billing, at the same 5,000 editor loads.

A lower listed overage rate on the free plan. $40 per 1,000 loads beyond the free 1,000, against CKEditor's $60, both as vendor-published on the day we checked.

A cloud path without a self-hosted key. Loading from Tiny Cloud needs no licence key in your configuration; CKEditor's cloud distribution needs a commercial key.

A menu bar by default. Our default TinyMCE build showed File, Edit, View, Insert and Format menus as well as the toolbar, which matches what users of desktop word processors expect.

Branding in the GPL builds

Both free self-hosted builds carry vendor branding. CKEditor's documentation says the GPL configuration displays a "Powered by CKEditor" logo. Our TinyMCE 8.9.1 GPL build showed a "Get all features" button and a TinyMCE credit in the status bar. If the editor ships under your brand, price the commercial licence before comparing features.

Migration between them

Both store HTML, so content moves with less effort than between block-based editors; the work is in the elements one editor's schema allows and the other's strips, and in plugin-specific markup such as embeds. The integration layer — toolbar configuration, custom plugins, upload handlers — is a rewrite in either direction.

If the licence is the reason you are comparing these two at all, the other route is out of both, towards a permissive licence. Our TinyMCE alternatives guide covers those routes.

Decision checklist

1. Can our product comply with the GPL? If not, both are commercial purchases.
2. How many editor loads a month? Both price around loads; model yours against each tier.
3. What is our JavaScript budget on the editing route? The measured gap is 232.7 kB.
4. Do we need collaboration or AI? Both sell them; compare the add-on prices, not the base plans.
5. Does the editor ship under our brand? Confirm what removes the branding under your licence.

The number that matters

232.7 kB — the gzip gap between the two in our bundle benchmark. Load either one lazily on the editing route, and see the rich-text category page for the permissively licensed options.