Compared To Other CMS
|Easy to install and setup||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|WYSIWYG editor (*1)||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Discussion Forum (*1)||Yes||No||Yes||No|
|Events Calendar (*1)||No||No||Yes||No|
|Photo Gallery (*1)||No||No||Yes||No|
|Style Wizard||No, but lots of user themes||No, but lots of user themes||Yes||No, but lots of user themes|
|eCMS||Yes, Drupal is a sophisticated framework||No (but the framework Joomla uses is very strong)||Yes||No|
|Bug back log||4594||49||2||1429|
|Uniform design||Core only||Core only||Extensive||Core only|
|Strong plugin integration||No||No||Yes||No|
|Uniform standards||Core only||Core only||Extensive||Core only|
|Modular , flexible, and maintainable||Yes||Limited (framework is, but product has some big assumptions)||Yes||Limited|
|Full API documentation||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Reported security holes (historic)||143||94||5||205|
|Scalability testing||Some people have millions||Untested||Tested to 1 million||Untested|
|Page throughput||26.22 trans/sec||8.57 trans/sec||10.13 trans/sec (*2)||19.12 trans/sec|
(lots of agencies)
|Varies by goals||Anybody|
- This data was taken from CMS Matrix, tests run on default installs, and also is based our understanding of the systems.
Please notify us if the status of anything is incorrect and we'll update the table.
- *1: Most of this functionality can be added to other systems using third-party plugins (we explain why we think this is bad above).
The features we picked for the table are just some examples: we didn't want to make the table hundreds of rows long.
- *2: We could have improved our speed by removing bundled addons (this gets Composr 17.77 trans/sec), but we wanted to be consistent in comparing default installations. Drupal 7's default site did not come with any content or blocks placed, so was naturally very fast. Wordpress is simple without much overhead.
These figures are outdated and need updating. We have managed to do some quite sophisticated optimisations in Composr v10.