Which open-source option replaces AEM 6.5 on your own infrastructure
If you run an AEM 6.5 estate and want to stay self-hosted rather than move to AEM as a Cloud Service, Drupal is the strongest fit for large multi-site estates, Wagtail suits teams that build in Python on Django and need multi-site and multi-language support, and Strapi or Payload suit headless builds where the front end is a separate application. The right choice depends less on feature lists than on who will maintain the platform after launch, which languages your developers already write in, and whether your sites share components and templates or need to stand apart. The pressure to decide now comes from the support calendar. Core support for AEM 6.5 on-premise runs until February 28, 2027, and extended support, limited to critical fixes, runs until February 28, 2028, according to Adobe's AEM 6.5 support timeline. Adobe offers AEM Sites as AEM 6.5 and AEM 6.5 LTS, either self-hosted or on Adobe Managed Services, and as AEM as a Cloud Service on a subscription with continuous updates and Edge Delivery Services. Teams that want to keep control of hosting and upgrade timing therefore face a choice between a self-hosted replacement and a move to the cloud service, and the extended support window is a fallback for planning, not a place to stay indefinitely. Before you shortlist options, confirm three things with Adobe and your own environment: which AEM 6.5 offering your contract covers (self-hosted, Managed Services or LTS), whether you have an entitlement you need to keep after migration, and how many sites, languages and custom components you run. Those counts drive the rebuild effort far more than the choice of platform. Ask your implementation partner to inventory templates and components against the platform you select, because a replacement that is well suited to your content model can still be expensive if your AEM components depend on proprietary features.
Which open-source platform fits which AEM estate
AEM estates differ in site count, editorial model and developer skills, so the right replacement depends on which of those dominates. The cards below cover the five options most often considered, plus one source-available option that is not OSI-licensed. Check each licence against your legal team's requirements before shortlisting.
Drupal for multi-site estates
Drupal is a PHP content management framework licensed under GPL version 2 or later, and contributed projects on Drupal.org carry the same licence family. It fits large estates that run many sites from one codebase, with strong multilingual and permissions models that map well to AEM's multi-site structure. The trade-off is that your team must build component and template patterns in Drupal's own model, which is a rebuild rather than a lift. Confirm which contributed modules you need for DAM and workflow, and review their maintenance status before you commit.
Wagtail for Django teams
Wagtail is a content management system built on Django and released under BSD-3-Clause, so it carries few licence obligations for internal use. It suits organizations with Python skills, moderate site counts and a need for multi-site and multi-language support plus a headless content API. Commercial support is available from Torchbox, the project's primary sponsor, which can matter for regulated buyers who need a contract. Check whether its built-in workflow and approval steps cover your editorial process or need custom work.
Strapi as a headless back end
Strapi is a headless CMS whose Community Edition is MIT licensed, so most of the core can run self-hosted without a commercial agreement. Its code in ee/ directories falls under the Enterprise Edition licence unless you hold a signed agreement or a Strapi Cloud subscription. This fits teams that want an API-first back end with a separate front end built in React or Next.js. Before adopting it, list every feature you need and confirm each one sits in the Community Edition, because AEM's editorial workflow and DAM depth will need separate components.
Payload inside a Next.js app
Payload is an MIT-licensed CMS that installs directly into a Next.js /app folder, so editing, schema and front end can live in one TypeScript codebase. It supports self-hosted MongoDB and PostgreSQL, which gives your database team a familiar operating model. This fits engineering-led teams replacing AEM components with custom React blocks and wanting content types defined in code. The trade-off is that the editorial experience and governance features are thinner than AEM's, so pilot the authoring workflow with real editors before you plan the full rebuild.
WordPress for content-led sites
WordPress is released under GPLv2 or later, and its plugins and themes are treated as derivative works that must also be GPL. It fits marketing and content-heavy sites where editors need a familiar interface and the estate is mostly pages, not complex document-driven or transactional flows. The trade-off is governance: large AEM estates with strict approval chains and many brands often need more plugin review and hardening than WordPress requires out of the box. Confirm your plugin inventory and each plugin's licence before migration.
Directus as a source-available option
Directus is not licensed under an OSI open source licence. It uses the Monospace Sustainable Core License, which allows internal use, bars competing use, and converts each release to GPL-3.0 four years after release. Teams with strict open source procurement rules should treat it as a different risk category from the MIT, BSD and GPL options above. Ask your legal team to review the licence terms, especially if you plan to offer the platform to external clients or affiliates.
How AEM capabilities map to open-source options and where coverage is partial
This table maps the main AEM capability areas to the open-source platforms most likely to cover them, and names the gap in each case. Read each row as a starting point for a fit check against your AEM 6.5 implementation, not as proof of parity, because most gaps need a module, plugin or custom build that you must confirm for your platform version.
| Capability | Open-source option | Coverage and gap |
|---|---|---|
| Pages and templates | Drupal, Wagtail | Both model page types and templates, but AEM template and policy structures must be remodeled as content types or Wagtail page models. Expect manual mapping work. |
| Components | Drupal paragraphs or blocks, Wagtail StreamField, Strapi or Payload components | Component logic and dialogs do not transfer. Each AEM component needs a rebuild in the target field and rendering model. |
| Digital asset management | Drupal media, Wagtail images and documents, Directus or Strapi media libraries | Basic asset storage and metadata are covered. Advanced DAM features such as renditions workflows and rights management usually need extra tooling. Confirm with each vendor. |
| Multi-site and multi-language | Drupal multisite and language modules, Wagtail multi-site and multi-language support | Both are documented as supported. Drupal is typically better suited to large estates with many sites. Confirm the module versions and translation workflow you need. |
| Workflow and approvals | Drupal content moderation and workflows, Wagtail workflows and moderation | Basic draft, review and publish flows are available. Multi-step approvals with custom routing, scheduled launches across sites and audit trails need configuration or custom code. |
| Personalization and targeting | No direct equivalent in the core platforms | Personalization is not a core feature of the CMS options listed. Plan a separate tool or a custom integration, and confirm how it feeds content by audience. |
| Forms | Drupal Webform, Wagtail form builder | Drupal Webform is a mature option for complex forms. Wagtail offers a form builder suited to simpler needs. Check submission handling, integrations and accessibility requirements for each. |
| Deployment and scaling | Self-hosted Drupal, Wagtail or headless builds on your own cloud or data center | You own hosting, caching, search, backups and upgrades. Scaling and high availability are your design, so confirm them against your traffic and recovery targets. |
Which option fits a large multi-site estate, a Python team or a headless build
Drupal is the option most often considered when an AEM estate runs many sites, languages and business units under shared governance. Its multisite and multilingual capabilities, along with a large contributed module ecosystem, suit organizations that need one platform team serving many editorial groups. Drupal and contributed projects are licensed GPL version 2 or later, and the GPL does not require you to share code that is only used to run your own website, which matters when customizations stay internal.
- Shared platform governance: Fit is strongest when one team owns the codebase, a single upgrade path and editorial access rules across sites.
- Component rebuilds: AEM components and templates map to Drupal content types, paragraphs and layout builders, which usually means a rebuild, not a lift-and-shift.
- Module selection: Confirm that each AEM capability you rely on, such as workflows, translation or asset handling, has a maintained contributed module or a scoped custom build.
- Skills in market: Check whether your hiring pool and partners have current Drupal experience at the scale you plan to run.
- Upgrade discipline: Multi-site Drupal estates need a tested process for core and module updates.
First question to resolve: how many sites, languages and editorial teams must share one codebase, and which of them need independent release cycles?
Wagtail is a BSD-3-Clause CMS built on Django that offers multi-site and multi-language support plus a headless content API. It fits organizations that already run Python services, have Django knowledge in-house or want editors and developers to share one framework. Commercial support is available from its primary sponsor Torchbox, which can matter to teams that want a contracted escalation path.
- Existing Python skills: Fit improves when developers already maintain Django applications and can own models, templates and deployment.
- Editor experience: Wagtail's admin suits content-led sites, but confirm that complex approval chains and asset-heavy workflows meet your requirements.
- Multi-site structure: Map each AEM site root to a Wagtail site and confirm how shared navigation and components are reused.
- Headless delivery: If front ends are built separately, verify the content API covers your channels and caching needs.
- Commercial support: Ask whether you need a support contract and what the sponsor's scope covers.
First question to resolve: does your team have Django capacity to own the platform for years, or will the project depend on a small number of specialists?
Strapi and Payload fit teams that want content delivered to independently built front ends, such as Next.js applications or mobile apps. Payload is MIT licensed, installs directly into a Next.js /app folder and supports self-hosted MongoDB and PostgreSQL. Strapi's Community Edition is MIT licensed, but code in ee/ directories falls under the Strapi Enterprise Edition license unless you hold a signed agreement or a Strapi Cloud subscription, so license review belongs in the first week.
- Front-end ownership: Fit is strongest when a product team already builds and deploys the presentation layer and needs a content API, not a page-assembly system.
- License scope: For Strapi, list every feature you plan to use and check whether it lives under
ee/. - Database choice: Payload's supported self-hosted databases should match your operations standards.
- Preview and editorial tooling: Confirm how editors preview unpublished content across channels, since AEM's authoring experience will not carry over automatically.
- Component modeling: Rebuild AEM components as typed content models and front-end components, which is design work, not an export.
First question to resolve: will editors accept a decoupled preview experience, or do they depend on in-page authoring that headless tools do not replicate?
Some organizations must keep content, assets and logs in a specific cloud account, data center or air-gapped network, often because of data residency, sector regulation or contractual terms. Self-hosting any of the options above keeps control of data location and access within your own environment, and this tab is where that requirement sets the shortlist. Because the platforms run on your infrastructure, the cost and effort sit in hosting, patching, backup and evidence collection, which your team or a partner must own.
- Hosting footprint: Confirm the target environment, including whether high availability, backups and disaster recovery must stay inside the same boundary.
- Access and identity: Map editor, developer and administrator roles to your identity provider and document who can export content.
- Backup and restore: Test restores of content, assets and configuration, since each platform stores these differently.
- Evidence for assessors: Prepare configuration baselines and change records. DeployOpen prepares systems and evidence for compliance assessments, but independent auditors issue any audit report.
- Vendor terms: Review the license for any component that phones home or depends on a hosted service.
First question to resolve: which regulator, contract or internal policy defines the allowed locations, and does it cover backups, logs and developer access?
What you give up when you leave AEM and the usual workarounds
Leaving AEM 6.5 means more than moving pages and assets. Several capabilities that Adobe bundles with AEM, from editorial approvals to vendor-run scaling and Adobe-specific integrations, must be rebuilt, replaced or deliberately dropped. Each card below names the usual workaround and what your team should confirm before committing to a target platform.
Editorial workflow gap
AEM ships with page-level workflows, approval steps and translation hand-offs that many editorial teams rely on daily. Open-source CMS platforms differ widely here: Drupal offers workflow modules such as Content Moderation, while Wagtail provides its own moderation and approval flow and Strapi and Payload rely more on custom hooks or plugins. Confirm each approval path, role and notification your editors use today and test it against the candidate platform before you design the new content model.
Vendor-managed scaling and support
On AEM 6.5 on-premise, your team or a managed-services provider runs the environment, capacity planning and patching. Self-hosting an open-source CMS moves that responsibility to you, and the cost of uptime becomes a line item in your own infrastructure budget. Ask who will own on-call response, load testing, CDN configuration and security patch windows, and whether a commercial support contract from the platform's sponsor or a partner is required.
Adobe-specific integrations
AEM is often wired to Adobe Target for testing, Adobe Analytics for measurement and Marketo for lead management. None of these integrations carries over automatically. The usual workaround is a separate personalization or experimentation tool, a warehouse-based analytics pipeline and a marketing automation platform connected through APIs or a tag manager. Inventory every tag, data layer key and campaign hand-off that touches AEM, since each one becomes custom integration work.
Experience Fragments and Edge Delivery
Experience Fragments let teams reuse headers, promotional blocks and campaign modules across sites, and Edge Delivery Services is Adobe's delivery model within AEM as a Cloud Service. Self-hosted alternatives usually reproduce reuse through shared components, reusable content types or a headless front end, and delivery through your own CDN. Confirm which fragments are shared across sites, which need separate authoring rights, and whether your CDN and caching rules can meet the same performance targets.
Built-in DAM depth
AEM's Digital Asset Manager provides metadata schemas, renditions, smart tagging and rights tracking inside the same product as the page editor. Open-source options generally handle assets through a media library or a separate DAM, so asset metadata, usage rights and rendition rules must be mapped explicitly. List the metadata fields, rendition sizes and licensing expiry rules your asset library depends on before choosing whether to keep a standalone DAM or extend the CMS media model.
How AEM components and templates get rebuilt on an open-source stack
AEM component code does not move across to Drupal, Wagtail or a headless front end. Sling models, HTL templates, dialogs, component policies and the cq:Template and cq:EditConfig definitions are written for the AEM runtime, so each one has to be redesigned as a content type, block, paragraph type or front-end component on the target platform. Plan this as a rebuild with a mapping document, not as a code conversion. Do not accept any vendor or tool claim of automated conversion of Sling or HTL code without testing it on one of your own pages first. Start by inventorying what you actually have: list every page template, every component used on live pages (not only those in the component library), and every experience fragment and content fragment. Usage counts from your analytics or content repository will show which components carry real traffic and which are leftovers.
For each component in use, decide what it becomes on the target. A text-and-image component usually maps to a reusable block with defined fields. A component with conditional dialog logic, multi-field repeaters or author-selected styles may need to be split into two or three simpler blocks, because the editing model changes. Experience fragments that appear on many pages (headers, footers, promotions) usually become shared global content or a referenced block, and you should confirm how each target handles reuse, versioning and scheduled publishing before you commit. Page templates map to content types with a defined layout, and you should record which template properties, such as navigation settings or SEO fields, need an explicit field on the new model.
Then decide which content is rebuilt and which is re-entered. Rebuilt content is the structured content that can be exported from the AEM repository and transformed into the new schema, such as product data, articles and team records. Re-entered content is usually the hand-authored pages that depend on bespoke layouts, where the cost of manual editing is lower than the cost of building a transform. Ask your implementation partner for a written split by page family, with the rationale for each. Keep in mind that AEM workflow definitions, launches and translation workflows are not component code, so they need a separate mapping, covered in the editorial workflow section.
How a move off AEM 6.5 runs from inventory to decommission
The sequence turns an AEM 6.5 estate into a documented inventory, a rebuilt and piloted target stack, and a decommissioned AEM with archives kept for reference. Each step closes with an output the team can check before the next one starts.
Inventory sites, components and integrations
Build a complete register of every AEM site, template, component, workflow, user group, dependent integration and custom code path, including the Dispatcher and CDN layer. Your platform team and the AEM developers who own the code do most of this work, with DeployOpen supporting the analysis if you ask for it in the written scope. Ask the vendor or your partner which AEM 6.5 build and service packs are in production, since that determines which features you must replicate. The step is done when each item has an owner, a usage figure from analytics or logs, and a keep, rebuild or retire decision.
Map content, users and DAM assets
Define how content types, page hierarchies, locales, metadata and the DAM folder structure map to the target schema, and decide which assets, renditions and tags move. Export content through the JSON or repository tools your AEM team already uses, and record which permissions and workflow states must be recreated by hand because export tools often omit them. Confirm with your legal and records teams which content is current, which is archived and which must be retained. The output is a signed mapping document and a row count reconciliation plan for each content type.
Migrate the DAM with checksums
Move the digital asset library as its own workstream, because binary files, renditions and metadata rarely map one to one. Copy originals, regenerate or port renditions the target CMS needs, and carry over tags, rights information and expiry dates. Compare file counts and checksums between source and target, and sample assets in the editorial interface to confirm that metadata and crops display correctly. The step closes when a reconciliation report shows zero unexplained gaps and editors have signed off on a sample set.
Rebuild the editorial workflow
Recreate AEM's approval, translation and publishing workflows as explicit states in the target platform, with roles that match your governance model. This is a named gap: open-source CMSs provide editorial roles and some workflow features, but multi-step approvals with translation hand-offs usually need custom code, a plugin or an external workflow tool. Run the new workflow with a small group of editors and record every step where they work around it. The output is an approved workflow specification and a test log of each state transition.
Rebuild components and templates, then pilot one site
Rebuild the templates and components selected in the inventory on the target stack, and use a site with moderate traffic and complexity as the pilot. Test rendering, accessibility, search, forms and integrations against the AEM original, and compare page load and cache behavior under realistic traffic. Run the pilot in the client's own environment, not a shared sandbox. The step is complete when the pilot site passes your acceptance criteria, the defects list is closed or accepted in writing, and the editors confirm they can publish without help.
Run the parallel period and plan cutover
Run the remaining sites on the new platform in parallel with AEM, keeping content synchronized through a documented process and a single owner for each content item during the overlap. Prepare the DNS, certificate and redirect plan, mapping every old URL to a new one and testing redirects with a crawl of the legacy estate. Agree a rollback procedure with a named decision owner. The output is a signed cutover runbook and a redirect test report with no unmapped high-traffic URLs.
Cut over DNS and monitor
Switch DNS and traffic to the new platform following the runbook, then watch error rates, redirect hits, search indexing and form submissions closely. Keep AEM available for rollback until the agreed monitoring window passes without critical defects. The check is that traffic, errors and conversions match or beat the pre-cutover baseline and that the rollback path was not needed.
Decommission AEM and keep archives
Once the agreed exit criteria are met, shut down AEM author and publish instances, revoke licenses and service accounts, and remove integration credentials. Before shutdown, keep a read-only archive of the repository, DAM, configuration, logs and audit trails in storage that your records policy and legal hold process govern. Confirm the retention period and access rules with your compliance team, and check your contract for the termination steps and data return terms. The output is a decommission certificate listing what was removed, what was archived and where, and who approved each step.
What moving off AEM 6.5 costs, takes and needs from your team
What drives the cost of moving off AEM 6.5?
The cost is driven mainly by how much content, how many templates and components, and how many sites and locales you have to rebuild, plus how much integration work sits around the CMS. Costs fall into a few components: the platform team who stands up and hardens the new stack, the developers who rebuild components and templates, the content engineers who map and migrate the DAM and page tree, and the editors who check the result. Ongoing hosting, patching, backups and monitoring recur after launch, while schema design, migration scripts and rebuilds are one-time. When you request a quote, ask for each of these components separately, the assumptions behind the volume of content and components, and which items are excluded, such as licensing for any commercial add-ons you keep. Any figure you receive should be checked against your own inventory of templates, components, assets and integrations.
How long does a migration off AEM 6.5 typically take?
Duration depends on the size of the estate and on how much of the front end is being rebuilt, so no single timeline applies to every organization. Core support for AEM 6.5 on-premise runs until February 28, 2027, and extended support with critical fixes only runs until February 28, 2028, according to Adobe's AEM 6.5 support timeline article. Work back from those dates: an inventory and content model phase, a build phase for components and templates, a DAM and content migration phase with repeated test runs, and a parallel run with editor sign-off before cutover. Ask any partner to show the phases and the dependencies between them in writing, and check whether the plan leaves room for editorial freeze periods and for regulatory review of the new environment.
Can our internal team do the AEM 6.5 move without outside help?
Some teams can, particularly where they already run Drupal, Django or a Node.js stack in production and have people who have migrated content before. The harder parts are usually the ones that are easy to underestimate: mapping AEM's component and template model to a new content model, moving DAM metadata and renditions without breaking links, rebuilding workflow and approval steps, and proving that access controls and audit trails still work. Ask yourself whether you have engineers who can own the platform after launch, editors who can test at volume, and time that does not compete with the next release cycle. Many organizations split the work, keeping internal ownership of content decisions and bringing in an implementation partner for the platform build, migration tooling and hardening. Confirm your internal capacity against the phases in the plan before deciding.
What does the migration need from editors and content owners?
Editors need to take part early and often, because the new system will only be right if they confirm what the content means. The main editor tasks are reviewing the proposed content types and page templates, deciding which legacy pages to retire rather than carry over, checking DAM folders and asset metadata, and testing preview and publishing on representative pages. Expect a gap in the editorial workflow: AEM's approval and workflow features need to be redesigned on the new platform, often with a mix of built-in role controls and custom steps, so editors should document their current approval chains before the build starts. Ask your partner for a sign-off checklist per content type and a test plan that editors can run without developer help.
What does a developer team need to rebuild components and templates?
Developers need to translate AEM components, templates, Sling models and client libraries into the target framework, which for many estates means a new rendering layer and a new content API. The skill set depends on the chosen platform: Drupal work leans on PHP, Twig and the Drupal configuration model, while Wagtail work leans on Python and Django templates, and headless builds add a front-end framework and a separate API layer. Check whether your developers already have these skills, and whether your front-end and content teams can work in parallel without blocking each other. Ask for a component inventory, a list of custom integrations that must be re-implemented, and the test approach for accessibility, performance and cross-browser behavior.
What does a fixed-scope DeployOpen engagement cover?
DeployOpen plans, implements, customizes, integrates, hardens, backs up, upgrades, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own cloud accounts, data centers or air-gapped networks. Most engagements are fixed-scope, so the scope, deliverables and timelines are agreed in writing before work starts. For an AEM exit, a written scope would typically name the target platform, the content and asset volumes in scope, the components and templates to rebuild, the integrations to re-establish, the security hardening and backup setup, and the handover documentation. Ongoing support, upgrades and continuous testing are available as retainers. DeployOpen does not publish a price list, and a quote follows from the written scope. DeployOpen prepares systems, controls and evidence for compliance assessments, but independent auditors and certification bodies issue any audit report or certification.
What should we confirm about licensing and hosting before we commit to a new CMS?
Confirm the licence terms of every component you plan to run, because open-source does not always mean unrestricted. Drupal and its contributed projects are GPL version 2 or later, and the GPL does not require sharing code that is only used to run a website, according to Drupal.org licensing. Wagtail is BSD-3-Clause, which is also permissive. Directus is not under an OSI open source license, so it should be checked separately if it is on your shortlist. Also confirm which hosting, database, search and storage services you will pay for, because a self-hosted CMS still runs on infrastructure you must buy, operate and secure. Ask your partner to list every component with its licence, its support model and its owner.
Does a move off AEM 6.5 affect our compliance evidence?
It can, because the change of platform affects access control, logging, backup, change management and data location, and each of those may be part of your assessment scope. Before cutover, map the controls your auditors rely on to the new environment, and decide what evidence you will keep from AEM 6.5 for records retention. DeployOpen prepares systems, controls and evidence for compliance assessments, but it does not issue audit reports, attestations or certifications, and independent auditors and certification bodies do that work. Confirm early with your auditor which frameworks apply and what they will need to see from the new platform.
How DeployOpen scopes, migrates, hands over and supports the replacement
DeployOpen plans, implements, customizes, integrates, hardens, backs up, upgrades, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own infrastructure. For an AEM 6.5 replacement, that means agreeing a written scope first, building the new platform in your cloud account, data center or air-gapped network, and handing over documentation your team can run.
How we scope
- Inventory every AEM 6.5 site, template, component, workflow, DAM folder and integration before choosing a target platform.
- Agree in writing which sites, languages, components and editorial workflows move, and which are retired.
- Confirm hosting location, identity provider, security controls and data residency requirements before any build work starts.
How we build
- Rebuild templates and components on the chosen platform, such as Drupal, Wagtail or a headless stack, against the agreed inventory.
- Migrate DAM assets and metadata with checks that compare asset counts, renditions and references against the source system.
- Run security testing on the new applications and APIs, and document the editorial workflow gap with approved compensating steps.
How we hand over
- Deliver architecture, configuration, runbooks and backup procedures in documents your administrators and developers can follow.
- Walk through editorial workflows and permissions with content owners, including any approval steps that do not carry over from AEM.
- Prepare control descriptions and evidence for your compliance team, noting that independent auditors and certification bodies perform any formal assessment.
How we support
- Support ongoing operations, upgrades and continuous security testing through a retainer after handover, scoped in writing.
- Keep backups, patching and platform upgrades on a documented schedule agreed with your team.
- Confirm with your vendors and your own environment the support windows and license terms that apply to each chosen platform.
