Registration is coming soon. Acrosite is not open for sign-up yet.Contact us
For Developers

CMS for Next.js websites: a Git-backed publishing workflow

Next.js and other modern Git-backed sites can source content in several ways. Acrosite commits Markdown/MDX with frontmatter to your repository, so your build reads content from Git while writers and Client Reviewers work without GitHub access.

Contact UsView Features
Other content sources

May fit developers who edit Markdown directly or fetch content from an external CMS.

Acrosite

May fit teams that want content committed to Git with a publishing workflow around it.

How to decide

The right choice depends on whether you want manual file editing, an external CMS, or content-in-Git with a workflow.

Side by side

Other content sources and Acrosite, compared

Approaches differ by team and setup — verify current specifics against each tool's documentation.

Feature / workflow
Other content sourcesManual files or external CMS
AcrositeGit-backed publishing platform
Primary use case
Other content sourcesManual Markdown files or an external CMS
AcrositeDesigned for content publishing operations across projects
Content model
Other content sourcesFiles in the repo or content from an API
AcrositePosts, Pages, and Custom Content Types
Posts
Other content sourcesDepends on the approach
AcrositeAvailable
Pages
Other content sourcesDepends on the approach
AcrositeAvailable
Custom Content Types
Other content sourcesDepends on the approach
AcrositeAvailable
Custom Fields
Other content sourcesDepends on the approach
AcrositeAvailable
Git-backed publishing
Other content sourcesOnly when content is in the repo
AcrositeAvailable
Access for non-technical users
Other content sourcesOften developer-led for file editing
AcrositeNot required for writers or Client Reviewers
Team Members
Other content sourcesDepends on the approach
AcrositeAvailable
Client Reviewers
Other content sourcesUsually handled outside the workflow
AcrositeAvailable
Review & approval workflow
Other content sourcesDepends on the approach
AcrositeBuilt-in review and approval
Scheduled publishing
Other content sourcesDepends on the approach
AcrositeDesigned for this workflow
Content Calendar
Other content sourcesNot typically included
AcrositeAvailable
Publish Logs
Other content sourcesNot typically included
AcrositeAvailable
Multi-project agency workflow
Other content sourcesDepends on the approach
AcrositeDesigned for multi-project workflows
Deployment trigger visibility
Other content sourcesHandled by your build pipeline
AcrositeVisible in Publish Logs
SEO-focused publishing workflow
Other content sourcesDepends on the front end
AcrositeStructured fields support SEO workflows
Best-fit team
Other content sourcesDevelopers comfortable wiring content themselves
AcrositeAgencies, website owners, and content teams

This is a high-level workflow comparison. The right fit depends on your website setup, team workflow, and publishing requirements.

What changes

What changes in the workflow?

With manual files or an external CMS
  • 01Developers edit Markdown files or wire up an external CMS.
  • 02Content is sourced at build time from files or an API.
  • 03Review, scheduling, and client access are handled separately.
With Acrosite
  • 01The team creates Posts, Pages, and Custom Content Types.
  • 02Writers and editors work without GitHub access.
  • 03Client Reviewers can review their assigned content.
  • 04Approved content can be scheduled.
  • 05Acrosite commits to GitHub and records Publish Logs.
Decision guide

When should you choose which?

If your priority is…
Better fit may be…
Why
Content committed to Git
Better fitAcrosite
WhyMarkdown/MDX with frontmatter committed to your repository
Writers without GitHub access
Better fitAcrosite
WhyWriters and editors publish without touching the repository
Client review without GitHub access
Better fitAcrosite
WhyClient Reviewers approve assigned content without repository access
Fully manual, developer-only editing
Better fitEditing Markdown files directly
WhyMinimal tooling for a developer-only workflow
Git-backed ownership with a publishing workflow
Better fitAcrosite
WhyContent lives in Git with review, scheduling, and Publish Logs
What Acrosite includes

Publishing operations, built in

Review workflow

Move content through review and approval before publishing.

Scheduled publishing

Schedule approved content with date, time, and timezone.

GitHub publishing

Acrosite commits content to your connected repository.

Publish Logs

See trigger results and recovery context for each publish.

Client Reviewers

Clients review assigned content without GitHub access.

Posts, Pages & Custom Content Types

Model the content you publish across projects.

Custom Fields

Add the fields each content type needs.

Team Members

Give your team publishing roles without repository access.

FAQ

Common questions

Yes. Acrosite commits Markdown/MDX with frontmatter to your repository, so a Next.js build can read that content from Git.

No. Writers, editors, and Client Reviewers work in Acrosite without direct access to the repository.

Published content is committed to your connected GitHub repository, so it stays in Git as the source of truth.

If you have a developer-only workflow and don't need review, scheduling, or client access, editing files directly may be enough.

Try a simpler Git-backed publishing workflow.

Registration is coming soon. Contact us to talk through your publishing workflow, or read the docs to see how Acrosite works.

Contact UsRead Docs