“What’s the best CMS for our healthcare organisation?”
It’s one of the most common questions we get asked at Medico Digital, and with good reason. The content management system (CMS) landscape is vast and ever-evolving, with new players entering the market regularly. Each platform comes with its own set of features, strengths, and limitations, making it almost impossible to declare a single “best” option.
To help make sense of it all, we’ve taken inspiration from the classic Top Trumps card game to create a fun and easy-to-understand guide to the most popular CMS platforms in healthcare. Let’s meet our contestants!
WordPress
Spirit Animal: Monkey 🐒
Agile, adaptable, and found almost everywhere - like our simian friends, WordPress can adapt to almost any environment but occasionally needs some discipline.
Most suited to: Small to medium healthcare organisations, medical practices, and healthcare startups looking for a flexible and cost-effective solution. Ideal for content-rich sites with regular updates.
Pros:
- Low initial cost and widely available developers
- Extensive plugin ecosystem including healthcare-specific solutions (e.g. Appointment Booking, HIPAA Forms, ePrescription, Medical Timetable)
- User-friendly content management for non-technical staff
- Quick implementation time
Cons:
- Security vulnerabilities if not properly maintained (over 70% of WordPress installations are vulnerable to known exploits)
- Performance issues without proper optimisation (can lead to 3+ second page load times affecting SEO)
- Can become unwieldy and complex with too many plugins (sites with 20+ plugins experience 40% slower load times)
- Not built specifically for healthcare compliance needs
Drupal
Spirit Animal: Owl 🦉 (Wise, robust, requires expertise)
Drupal is the wise old owl of the CMS world - powerful, secure, and sophisticated, but requiring significant expertise to master.
Most suited to: Large healthcare organisations, hospitals, and research institutions needing robust security, complex content structures, and sophisticated workflow management.
Pros:
- Enterprise-grade security ideal for sensitive healthcare data
- Excellent content taxonomy for complex medical information
- Powerful multi-site capabilities for hospital networks
- Strong accessibility compliance features
Cons:
- Steep learning curve and less intuitive interface
- Higher development and maintenance costs (typical Drupal healthcare projects start at £50,000-£100,000)
- Requires specialist developers
- Slower implementation time
Umbraco
Spirit Animal: Fox 🦊
Clever, adaptable, and community-focused - like a fox, Umbraco combines intelligence with agility, making it a particularly good fit for UK healthcare.
Most suited to: Websites with large numbers of pages such as NHS trusts, and medium-sized organisations needing a flexible .NET-based solution with strong security features.
Pros:
- Strong integration with other .NET healthcare systems (such as NHS SPINE, Epic, Cerner)
- Clean, intuitive interface for content editors
- Good balance of flexibility and structure
- Particularly well-supported in the UK healthcare sector
Cons:
- Requires .NET developers which can be harder to find
- Less extensive marketplace compared to WordPress
- Can be more expensive than open-source alternatives
- More limited plugin ecosystem
Sitecore
Spirit Animal: Elephant 🐘
Powerful and impressive - like an elephant, Sitecore offers immense capabilities but requires significant resources and care.
Most suited to: Enterprise healthcare organisations requiring sophisticated digital experience management, personalisation, and multi-site capabilities with complex content workflows.
Pros:
- Advanced personalisation for patient-specific content
- Powerful multi-site management for complex healthcare networks
- Excellent integration capabilities with healthcare systems
- Enterprise-grade workflow and compliance features
Cons:
- Very high cost of ownership (typical enterprise implementations start at £100,000+ with annual licensing fees of £50,000+)
- Complex implementation requiring specialist developers
- Significant ongoing maintenance requirements
- Overkill for smaller healthcare organisations
Adobe Experience Manager
Spirit Animal: Giraffe 🦒
Tall, elegant, and with a great view of the digital landscape - AEM stands tall in the enterprise space but comes with a matching enterprise price tag.
Most suited to: Global healthcare enterprises needing sophisticated digital experience management, deep Adobe integration, and advanced asset management capabilities.
Pros:
- Excellent digital asset management for medical imagery
- Strong integration with Adobe analytics and marketing tools
- Global content delivery capabilities for international healthcare
- Advanced personalisation for patient experiences (e.g., showing relevant content based on condition, location, or treatment stage)
Cons:
- Highest cost of implementation and ownership (typical starting costs of £150,000-£500,000 with annual licensing around £100,000+)
- Requires specialist developers and significant resources
- Complex architecture with steep learning curve
- Can be slow to implement and update
Webflow
Spirit Animal: Cheetah 🐆
Fast, sleek, and visually impressive - Webflow combines speed and style with no-code flexibility, but might need a leash for complex healthcare requirements.
Most suited to: Healthcare startups and smaller organisations needing a modern, visually impressive site with custom design requirements but limited technical complexity.
Pros:
- Excellent visual design capabilities without coding
- Quick implementation time
- Clean, responsive sites out of the box
- No development team required
Cons:
- Limited integration with healthcare systems
- Challenges with complex content structures
- Can become costly as site grows
- Less suitable for large healthcare organisations
Wix & Squarespace
Spirit Animal: Parakeets 🦜
Like a pair of parakeets, these platforms are approachable and user-friendly, with similar capabilities but distinct personalities.
Most suited to: Individual practitioners, small clinics, and healthcare startups needing a simple online presence with minimal technical overhead. Squarespace tends to attract more design-conscious clients, while Wix offers more flexibility but can be less polished.
Pros:
- Lowest technical barrier to entry
- Affordable monthly costs
- Quick setup with healthcare-focused templates (specialised designs for clinics, surgeries, hospitals)
- Built-in hosting and security
Cons:
- Limited customisation for healthcare-specific needs
- Restricted integration capabilities
- Not suitable for complex healthcare websites
- Limited scalability as organisation grows
Key differences:
- Wix offers more design freedom but can result in less polished layouts
- Squarespace has stronger built-in features but fewer customisation options
- Wix has a larger app marketplace for extending functionality
- Squarespace better suits those prioritising clean, professional design
HubSpot CMS
Spirit Animal: Raccoon 🦝
Clever and resourceful - like a raccoon gathering shiny objects, HubSpot excels at collecting and using data while making complex marketing tasks seem simple.
Most suited to: Healthcare organisations focused on lead generation and patient engagement, needing tight integration between their website, marketing tools, and CRM.
Pros:
- All-in-one platform combining CMS, CRM and marketing tools
- Excellent lead generation and patient journey mapping
- Strong analytics and conversion tracking
- Built-in compliance and form management (GDPR-compliant forms and data collection)
Cons:
- Higher cost compared to traditional CMS (plans start at £300/month and can reach £3,000+/month for enterprise)
- Limited design flexibility compared to dedicated platforms
- Cost increases with contact database size
- Marketing-first approach may not suit all healthcare needs
Craft CMS
Spirit Animal: Eagle 🦅
Precise, powerful, and flexible - like an eagle, Craft soars with the freedom of a content-first approach while maintaining control.
Most suited to: Healthcare organisations needing a custom, content-first approach with flexible development options and clean content management.
Pros:
- Good content modelling for complex healthcare information
- Clean, intuitive interface for content managers
- Flexible, customisable content structures
- Excellent image handling for medical imagery
Cons:
- Requires skilled developers for implementation
- Fewer out-of-the-box features than some alternatives
- Limited plugin marketplace compared to WordPress
- Higher cost than more basic/traditional CMS solutions
Optimizely (nee Episerver)
Spirit Animal: Tortoise 🐢
Steady and reliable - like a tortoise, Optimizely offers enterprise stability with experimentation built into its DNA.
Most suited to: Mid to large healthcare organisations requiring sophisticated A/B testing, personalisation capabilities, and enterprise-grade content management.
Pros:
- Built-in A/B testing for healthcare messaging (test what language resonates best with patients)
- Strong personalisation capabilities for healthcare content
- Good integration with healthcare systems
- Solid security and performance
Cons:
- Significant initial investment (typical implementations start at £80,000-£150,000)
- Requires technical expertise to fully utilise
- Complex implementation process
- Ongoing licence fees
Headless CMS Platforms
For modern healthcare organisations needing ultimate flexibility in content delivery, headless CMS platforms offer a different approach. These systems separate content management from content presentation, allowing for more flexible, future-proof implementations.
Sanity
Spirit Animal: Bee 🐝
Structured, industrious, and highly adaptable - like a bee, Sanity excels at organising and structuring content that can be used anywhere.
Most suited to: Digital-first healthcare organisations needing flexible content delivery across multiple channels, particularly those with complex content structures or requiring real-time collaboration.
Pros:
- Future-proof architecture for evolving digital healthcare
- Excellent for multichannel content delivery (web, mobile apps, kiosks, IoT devices in hospital settings)
- Real-time collaborative editing
- Flexible content modelling for healthcare information
Cons:
- Requires front-end development resources
- More complex architecture than traditional CMS
- Not a complete solution out of the box
- Steeper learning curve for content editors
Contentful
Spirit Animal: Chameleon 🦎
Adaptable, flexible, and able to blend into any environment - Contentful transforms to fit whatever digital experiences you need to create.
Most suited to: Enterprise healthcare organisations with multiple digital touchpoints requiring a structured content repository that can feed various platforms.
Pros:
- Strong API-first approach for flexible content delivery
- Excellent content modelling for complex healthcare taxonomies
- Robust governance and user permission systems (critical for regulated healthcare content)
- Enterprise-grade reliability (99.99% uptime SLA)
Cons:
- High cost for growing organisations (starts around £500/month for professional use)
- Requires developer resources for implementation and maintenance
- Content editing experience can feel abstract for non-technical users
- More expensive than some alternatives (enterprise plans reach £5,000+/month)
Strapi
Spirit Animal: Octopus 🐙
Intelligent and flexible with multiple arms that can work independently - Strapi reaches into many directions while maintaining control.
Most suited to: Healthcare organisations that want headless CMS capabilities with more control over their infrastructure and costs.
Pros:
- Open-source foundation with self-hosting options (reducing ongoing costs)
- Excellent developer experience with customisable API
- Good balance between flexibility and usability
- Lower cost than other headless options (free self-hosted option available)
Cons:
- Less mature than other headless platforms
- Requires infrastructure management if self-hosted
- Smaller ecosystem of plugins and integrations
- Less enterprise-focused than Contentful (fewer governance features)
E-commerce Platforms
For healthcare organisations that need online selling capabilities, these e-commerce platforms offer varying levels of functionality and complexity.
Shopify
Spirit Animal: Hamster 🐹
Efficient and industrious - Shopify makes e-commerce accessible while maintaining professional capabilities.
Most suited to: Healthcare organisations needing a reliable e-commerce platform for selling products or services online with minimal technical overhead.
Pros:
- Quick setup for healthcare product stores (typically launch in 2-4 weeks)
- Comprehensive payment processing with healthcare-friendly options
- Built-in compliance features for regulated products
- Predictable pricing (plans from £29-£299/month plus transaction fees)
Cons:
- Limited customisation for complex healthcare purchasing flows
- Transaction fees on all non-Shopify payment gateways (2% on basic plans)
- Content management capabilities less robust than dedicated CMS
- Can become expensive with premium apps and higher-tier plans
WooCommerce
Spirit Animal: Beaver 🦫
Industrious and adaptable - WooCommerce builds powerful e-commerce capabilities on top of WordPress foundations.
Most suited to: Healthcare organisations already using WordPress that need to add e-commerce capabilities for products, services, or online booking.
Pros:
- Seamless integration with WordPress ecosystem
- No monthly fees (just payment processing costs)
- Highly customisable for healthcare-specific needs
- Extensive plugin options for healthcare (appointment booking, subscription services)
Cons:
- Requires more technical management than Shopify
- Security concerns similar to WordPress core
- Can become resource-intensive with many products
- Updates can sometimes break functionality
Magento (Adobe Commerce)
Spirit Animal: Rhinoceros 🦏
Powerful, robust, and somewhat intimidating - Magento offers industrial-strength e-commerce with corresponding complexity.
Most suited to: Large healthcare enterprises with complex product catalogues, multiple brands or clinical services, and sophisticated ERP integration needs.
Pros:
- Enterprise-grade capabilities for complex healthcare commerce
- Advanced multi-site management for healthcare networks
- Sophisticated product configuration options for healthcare equipment
- Strong integration with healthcare inventory and ERP systems
Cons:
- Extremely high implementation costs (£100,000-£500,000 for typical enterprise setups)
- Requires specialised developers with Magento expertise
- Significant ongoing maintenance and hosting costs
- Overkill for smaller healthcare organisations
Choosing Your Perfect Match
When selecting a CMS for your healthcare organisation, consider these key factors:
- Scale and growth: How large is your organisation, and how might it grow?
- Technical resources: What level of technical expertise do you have in-house?
- Budget: Consider both initial and ongoing costs
- Content complexity: How sophisticated are your content needs?
- Integration requirements: What other systems need to connect with your CMS?
Need help choosing the right CMS for your healthcare organisation? Get in touch with our team of digital healthcare specialists. We’ll help you navigate the CMS jungle and find the perfect platform for your needs.