Migrating from WordPress to a headless setup
Headless WordPress, Sanity, Contentful, or Payload. When the move makes sense and when it does not.
"Headless" means separating the content management from the front-end. Editors still get a CMS to edit content; visitors get a fast, custom-built front-end that reads from that CMS. The two halves talk over an API.
Why anyone does this
Speed. A static Next.js front-end pulling from a CMS at build time is faster than any traditional WordPress install.
Design freedom. Front-end is custom code. No theme constraints.
Modern integrations. Real component libraries, animation libraries, design systems.
Editor experience. A modern headless CMS like Sanity or Payload has a better editing experience than WordPress for most teams.
The options
Headless WordPress. Keep WordPress as the backend (writers don't retrain), build the front-end fresh in Next.js. Works but feels like running a Ferrari engine in a Volvo body.
Sanity. Best-in-class editor. Real-time collaboration. Strongly opinionated schema design. Free up to a generous limit.
Contentful. Enterprise-flavoured. Powerful, expensive once you hit real volume.
Payload. Open-source, self-hostable, TypeScript-native. The 2026 favourite for studios who want full control.
Strapi. Open-source, similar to Payload, slightly older codebase.
The migration process
1. Pick the headless CMS. This decision dominates everything else. 2. Model your content schema in the new CMS. Often simpler than the WordPress equivalent. 3. Build the Next.js front-end. This is the biggest chunk of work. 4. Migrate the content. Either manual for small sites, or scripted for larger ones. 5. Set up redirects from old WordPress URLs to new paths. 6. Cutover, monitor, fix what breaks.
What it costs
A small site: 4-6 weeks. A medium publication: 3-6 months. A large content site: 6-12 months with a real team.
The ongoing cost is mostly engineering time. Once it is built, content editing happens in the CMS as before, but every new feature needs a developer.
Should you do it
Only if a regular CMS has hit a real wall. Performance is the most common one. Design freedom is the second. "Modern stack" alone is not a reason. Headless is more complex to maintain, requires engineering involvement for any front-end change, and the editor experience can regress depending on which CMS you choose.
For most studios with a 50-page marketing site, headless is overkill. For a high-traffic publication or a multi-brand portfolio, it earns its keep.