# Storyblok vs Sanity: a polished hosted app or a studio in your repository *Source: https://www.editorstack.cc/compare/storyblok-vs-sanity — last updated 2026-08-19. Licensed CC BY 4.0 with attribution to EditorStack.* ## Summary - Storyblok is a hosted CMS whose editor is a finished product; Sanity's Studio is open-source React code that lives in your repository and that you modify. - Both include visual editing in their free tiers, and Sanity's free plan supports up to 20 seats against Storyblok's single-seat Starter. - Storyblok's visual editor is more approachable for non-technical editors; Sanity's is more precise and requires threading source annotations through your front end. ## At a glance | Product | Type | Licence | Frameworks | Bundle (min+gzip) | Price from | Self-hosted | White label | Score | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | [Storyblok](https://www.editorstack.cc/libraries/storyblok) | cms | Proprietary | Any (framework-agnostic) | Not measurable | Free tier, paid plans undisclosed | No | No | not scored | | [Sanity Visual Editing](https://www.editorstack.cc/libraries/sanity) | cms | MIT | React, Vue | Not measurable | from $15/mo | Partial | No | not scored | ## Hosted product or code you own Storyblok's editor is a product. It looks finished because it is, and a content team can use it on day one without anyone customising anything. Sanity's Studio is a React application in your repository. It looks like whatever you make it, and it is finished when you decide it is. Developers who dislike black-box admin panels find this liberating; content teams waiting for someone to build the interface find it less so. Both approaches are legitimate, and the right one depends on who is short of time. ## Where Storyblok wins **Editor experience without effort.** The single most reliable predictor of a successful CMS project is whether the content team actually uses it, and Storyblok scores well here without customisation. **Composable page editing.** Its blok model maps closely to sections on a page, which non-technical editors understand quickly. **Managed translations.** A workflow rather than a modelling exercise. **Less integration work for preview.** Getting a working visual editor takes a bridge script and preview URLs; Sanity's overlays need annotations threaded through your rendering layer. ## Where Sanity wins **You own the interface.** The Studio is code. Custom input components, tailored document views and workflow tweaks are pull requests. **A far more generous free tier** — up to 20 seats with visual editing included. **Open-source packages.** MIT-licensed client libraries and visual-editing layer, inspectable and patchable. **Stronger structured content.** GROQ, references and a document model that holds up under genuinely complex requirements. **Per-seat rather than per-space pricing**, which suits teams running many projects — the inverse of Storyblok's model. ## The pricing shapes are opposites Storyblok bills per space: many projects, many subscriptions. Sanity bills per seat with usage allowances: many projects, one bill, but many editors cost more. An agency with fifteen client sites and three editors will find Sanity dramatically cheaper. A single product with one project and thirty editors may find Storyblok cheaper. Model your own shape; the headline numbers mislead in both directions. ## The integration difference Storyblok's preview needs a bridge script and preview URLs — a contained piece of work. Sanity's visual editing needs source annotations threaded through your rendering layer so overlays know which document produced which element. That is more work, and a partial implementation gives editors an inconsistent experience, which is worse than none. Budget for it properly or do not promise visual editing to your content team. ## Migration Both are structured content platforms, so migration between them is an export, a schema mapping and a transformer. It is more tractable than any migration involving a page builder, and the rendering layer and preview integration are rewritten either way. ## Verdict Content team that needs to work now, with limited developer time to spend on the CMS: Storyblok. Developer-led team that wants to own the editing interface, with a complex content model and a generous free tier: Sanity. If neither is right because the requirement is an editor for your own customers, the [embeddable category](/categories/open-source-visual-editors) is the correct one. ## Decision checklist 1. **Who has time — our developers or our content team?** Sanity spends developer time; Storyblok spends less of it. 2. **How many editors, and how many projects?** Per-seat and per-space pricing reward opposite shapes. 3. **Will we customise the editing interface?** Only Sanity makes that a pull request. 4. **How complex is the content model really?** Sanity handles genuine complexity better. 5. **Can we budget the annotation work?** Sanity's visual editing needs it threaded through your rendering layer. ## The number that matters 20 seats on Sanity's free plan against one on Storyblok's Starter. For a team evaluating seriously — or for a small organisation that never outgrows the free tier — that is not a marketing detail, it is the difference between adopting a CMS and budgeting for one. ## Frequently asked questions ### Which is better for a non-technical content team? Storyblok. The hosted app is more polished out of the box and needs no customisation to feel finished. ### Which gives developers more control? Sanity, decisively. The Studio is code in your repository, so changing the editing interface is a pull request rather than a feature request. ### Which is cheaper? Sanity's free tier is far more generous — up to 20 seats against Storyblok's one — and Growth is around $15 per seat per month. Storyblok's per-space model can be cheaper for a single large project with many editors.