Jun 05, 2024
A digital experience platform (DXP) is an integrated set of technologies that supports the composition, management, delivery, and optimization of contextualized digital experiences.
However, while many different types of DXPs and vendors are capable of meeting this definition, different underlying architectures should also be considered. In this article, we’ll assess these architectures while evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each option.
Types of DXP Architectures
Businesses should be aware of four fundamental DXP architectures. Each architectural type has its characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. The three types are:
-
Monolithic DXP
-
Composable DXP Suite
- Composable DXP Suite with Hybrid CMS
- Composable DXP Suite with Headless CMS
- Composable DXP
|
Monolithic DXP |
Composable DXP Suite with a Hybrid CMS |
Composable DXP Suite with a Headless CMS |
Composable DXP |
|---|---|---|---|
|
All-in-one solution. A one-stop hub for all components such as content management, content marketing features, analytics, personalization, search, commerce, and more. |
Composable solution based on several modular components provided by the same vendor and CMS with a core hybrid CMS. |
Composable solution based on several modular components provided by the same vendor and CMS with a core headless CMS. |
Composable solution based on best-of-breed SaaS products integrated through APIs. |
The Composable DXP Suite is a versatile solution that effectively combines the integrated suite convenience of a Monolithic DXP with the flexibility and modular integration found in a Composable DXP. With a Composable DXP Suite, customers can choose components from a single vendor or opt for components from different vendors to align with their specific requirements. This approach offers a balanced blend of features, catering to diverse needs while maintaining a cohesive digital experience. The figure below represents a composable DXP.
Comparing DXP Architectures
Let’s compare different architectures across the following set of categories:
- Architectural Fundamentals
- Implementation
- Security
- Agility
Architectural Fundamentals
Across the four DXP architectures, there are varying options for CMS hosting, procurement processes, support for headed and headless sites, vendor lock-in, maturity, cohesive integrated experience, feature development, bug fixes, support, and licensing costs.
|
Sub Category |
Monolithic DXP |
Composable DXP Suite with a Hybrid CMS |
Composable DXP Suite with a Headless CMS |
Composable DXP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Options |
Fewer vendors to choose from. |
Fewer vendors to choose from who can provide multiple components in a composable way and provide hybrid CMS. |
Fewer vendors to choose from who can provide multiple components in a composable way. |
Due to the nature and number of components in the composable stack, each component will provide several options to evaluate and choose from. |
|
DXP CMS Hosting |
On-Premise/Cloud Deployments |
Cloud Deployments |
Cloud Deployments |
Cloud Deployments |
|
Procurement and Contracts |
Procurement and contract with a single vendor providing the platform. |
Procurement and contract with a single vendor providing the different components. |
Procurement and contract with a single vendor providing the different components. |
Procurement and contracts with multiple composable component vendors. |
|
Support for Headed and Headless sites |
Supports headed sites generally but can support headless sites too. |
Can support both headless and headed sites. |
Supports headless sites. |
Supports headless sites. |
|
Vendor Lock-in |
Vendor lock-in with monolithic DXPs. |
Though composable, a higher degree of vendor lock-in than other composable architectures. |
Some vendor lock-in having bought into the ecosystem of the vendor. Composable, so can be replaced with another vendor’s component. |
Composable, so components are interchangeable, preventing vendor lock-in. |
|
Cohesive Integrated Experience |
Provides a cohesive, integrated experience as all products are bundled into the monolithic platform. |
Aims to provide a cohesive, integrated experience across products supplied by the vendor. |
Aims to provide a cohesive, integrated experience across products supplied by the vendor. |
Composed of diverse vendors, therefore it lacks the cohesive, integrated experience across the components. |
|
Maturity |
They have been around for many years and provide several features out of the box, such as content management, marketing, personalization, analytics, and others. |
Learnings from being in the DXP space, providing the stability and advanced features in some systems that are tried and tested such as template inheritance, inline editing, and other marketing capabilities. |
Learnings from being in the DXP space include providing stability and advanced features in some tried-and-tested systems, such as template inheritance, inline editing, and other marketing capabilities. |
Some composable headless CMS vendors are still maturing and advancing their feature set to meet required use cases, and in some cases, they lack features such as inline editing. |
|
Vendor Platform Feature Development |
Platform Feature development is slow as one platform provides multiple component features. |
Feature development is faster than monolithic, but slower than headless CMS. |
Feature development is fast owing to independent components. |
Feature development in components is fast, as they are all independent components. |
|
Vendor Bug Fixes |
Bug fixes take time to be rolled out and applied to the platform. |
Bug fixes are applied sooner than monolithic, but slower than the other composable architectures. |
Bug fixes are applied sooner owing to the independent components. |
Bug fixes are applied sooner owing to the independent components. |
|
Support |
Support from a single vendor for all the issues with the platform. |
Support from multiple vendors, but having several components from one vendor provides consistent support across different components from the vendor. |
Support from multiple vendors but having several components from one vendor provides consistent support across different components from the vendor. |
Support from disparate vendors for their respective components. |
|
License Cost |
You are paying for features that you may not be using. |
You are paying for the components that you need in general. However, for the CMS, you may be paying for features you may not use. |
You pay for only the components you need to make up your composable DXP. Your cost may be lower or higher depending on what components are bought and integrated to make up the composable stack. |
You only pay for the necessary components that make up your composable DXP. Your cost may be lower or higher depending on what components are bought and integrated to make up the composable stack. |
Implementation
Implementation requirements vary based on factors such as implementation complexity, customization capabilities, costs, required developer skills, content creation timelines, troubleshooting challenges, and upgrade considerations. Monolithic DXPs offer tighter feature integration but can be costly to customize and upgrade. Meanwhile, Composable DXPs provide flexibility and ease of customization but may require integration efforts and different developer skills. On the other hand, Composable DXP Suites offer a balance between the two.
|
Sub Category |
Monolithic DXP |
Composable DXP Suite with Hybrid CMS |
Composable DXP Suite with Headless CMS |
Composable DXP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Integrations among features |
Tighter integration of features provided within the DXP. |
Integrations provided by the vendor for some components. |
Integrations provided by the vendor for some components. |
Integrations need to be built between components chosen to be part of composable DXP to avoid silos. |
|
Customization |
Customization of features and integration with third-party systems is time-consuming and expensive. |
Customizations of the hybrid CMS will be expensive. Customization of other components will be the same as that of other composable architectures. |
Customizations are easier, considering they are parts of the composable DXP. |
Follows the premise of composable meaning being easy to integrate using API’s. |
|
Cost |
Implementation cost is dependent on how much customization / integrations are part of the implementation. If there are fewer customizations / integrations, the cost will be lower. However as we add more features, it becomes more costly. |
Implementation cost is dependent on how much customization / integrations are part of the implementation. If there are fewer customizations / integrations, the cost will be lower. However as we add more features, it becomes more costly. |
Initial costs are higher than that of a monolithic DXP due to integrations between composable stack components. However, it is easier to add new features due to the modularity of the components. |
Initial costs are higher than that of a monolithic DXP due to integrations between composable stack components. However, it is easier to add new features due to the modularity of the components. |
|
Developer Skills |
Needs developers who can pick up the monolithic platform and its technology. |
Needs developers who can learn different technology stacks based on the chosen composable components. However, using components from one vendor makes it easier to find developers with the necessary skills. |
Needs developers who can pick up different technology stacks based on the chosen composable components. However, using components from one vendor enables an easier time finding developers with the skills. |
Needs developers who can pick up different technology stacks based on the chosen composable components. |
|
Content Creation Timeline |
Content creation timeline is usually later than that of a composable stack. |
Content creation timeline for headed sites happens later than that of other composable architectures, but headless sites can happen similarly to that of other composable architectures. |
Content creation can happen sooner than in a monolithic architecture timeline. |
Content creation can happen sooner than in a monolithic architecture timeline. |
|
Troubleshooting Issues |
Troubleshooting issues is easier as it is a single platform to look into. |
Troubleshooting issues and tying up request flow among different systems is more difficult. |
Troubleshooting issues and tying up request flow among different systems is more difficult. |
Troubleshooting issues and tying up request flow among different systems is more difficult. |
|
Upgrades |
Upgrades are costly and time-consuming as everything is built into a monolithic platform. |
Upgrades vary by vendor and can be a non-issue in some cases while being costly in others. |
Upgrades aren’t an issue as they are based on SaaScomponents. |
Upgrades aren’t an issue as a composable architecture uses SaaScomponents. |
Security
Security capabilities vary based on security attack vectors, security patches, and monitoring aspects. Monolithic DXPs have a single point of vulnerability, while Composable DXPs spread security risks across multiple components. Security patch applications are generally faster in the Composable models due to their SaaS-based components. However, monitoring is simpler for Monolithic DXPs, as they involve a single platform, whereas monitoring the multiple platforms in the Composable models can be more complex and challenging.
|
Sub Category |
Monolithic DXP |
Composable DXP Suite with Hybrid CMS |
Composable DXP Suite with Headless CMS |
Composable DXP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Security Attack Vector |
Security attack vector limited to one platform. |
Security attack vectors spread over multiple components. |
Security attack vectors spread over multiple components. |
Security attack vectors spread over multiple components. |
|
Security Patches |
Security patches take time to be rolled out and applied to the platform. |
Security patches for composable components are rolled out sooner than in a monolithic platform. However, rolling out security patches for a hybrid CMS depends on the vendor and may sometimes be delayed. |
Security patches are applied sooner due to being independent components. |
Security patches are applied sooner due to being SaaScomponents. |
|
Monitoring |
Setup monitoring and monitoring a single platform is easier than monitoring across multiple platforms. |
Setup monitoring across multiple platforms and gathering insights is challenging. |
Setup monitoring across multiple platforms and gathering insights is challenging. |
Setup monitoring across multiple platforms and gathering insights is challenging. |
Agility
Monolithic DXPs respond slowly to changing demands, while Composable DXPs are more agile and responsive. Scalability differs, with Monolithic DXPs requiring scaling of the entire infrastructure, whereas Composable DXPs allow independent scaling of components. Technology varies, with Monolithic DXPs being tied to their platform's technology, while Composable DXPs leverage modern technology architectures. Issue boundaries differ, as Monolithic DXPs experience widespread impact from component issues, while Composable DXPs confine issues to the affected component. Plug-and-play architecture is a goal for Composable DXPs, aiming for modular, interchangeable components, which is a work in progress.
|
Sub Category |
Monolithic DXP |
Composable DXP Suite with Hybrid CMS |
Composable DXP Suite with Headless CMS |
Composable DXP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Scalability |
Scaling follows the scalability of the platform. |
Each component can be scaled independently; however, CMS scaling depends on hybrid CMS scaling capabilities. |
Each component can be scaled independently. |
Each component can be scaled independently. |
|
Agility |
Slow in responding to changing customer and business demands. |
More agile than monolithic platforms, but less agile than other composable architectures. |
Able to respond to changing customer and business demands. |
Agile and able to respond to changing customer and business demands. |
|
Technology |
Tied to the technology the platform supports. |
Leverages modern technology architectures for headless sites, but would leverage platform technology for headed sites. |
Leverages modern technology architectures and their benefits. |
Leverages modern technologies and their benefits. |
|
Issue Boundary |
An issue in any component of the platform affects the platform in general. |
Issues in the hybrid CMS impact both the headless and headed sites. Issues in other components are isolated to that component, similar to other composable architectures. |
Issues are isolated to the component that they belong to. |
Issues are isolated to the component that they belong to. |
|
Plug and Play Architecture |
Features are part of the monolithic platform and cannot be removed. |
Less plug-and-play than the other composable architectures with respect to the CMS. The other components have the same level of plug-and-play as other composable architectures. |
Intended to have plug-and-play composable components but has not been fully realized yet. |
Intended to have plug-and-play composable components but has not been fully realized yet. |
Choosing Between DXP Architectures
Monolithic DXPs, where all components are integrated into one system, are at one end of the spectrum, while Composable DXPs are at the other. Meanwhile, Composable DXP Suites are composable solutions provided by a single vendor. They offer better integration between the modular components and allow for easy replacement of any of those components with another.
Enterprises can integrate composable components into Monolithic DXPs for gradual transition as needed, owing to their architectures and ease of integration.
Composable DXPs are an evolving architecture, and for vendors to provide truly composable components, they need to follow architectural paradigms that allow for realizing the true potential of Composable DXP. Here are some high-level guidelines to consider when choosing between the architectures.
A Monolithic DXP is a good fit if:
- You want a less complex architecture
- You have fewer integrations and want to use features provided by the DXP vendor.
- You want a one-stop shop for your features
- You want a single-vendor solution
- You have a small IT department to develop/maintain the infrastructure
- You need more control over the entire technology stack
- Your timeline does not permit evaluating/procuring/ integrating products from multiple vendors.
A Composable DXP is a good fit if:
- You have different departments collaborating with each other
- You want to integrate best-of-breed platforms
- You have a large IT team to develop/maintain the infrastructure
- You are delivering content through various channels like websites, mobile applications, kiosks, watches, and other channels
- Your timelines permit evaluating/integrating/procuring from multiple vendors
There are valid reasons to choose a Composable architecture or a Monolithic DXP. However, Composable DXP Suites may provide the best of both worlds in functionality and total cost of ownership.
Choosing the best DXP architecture should align with an organization's needs, resources, and objectives. It's essential to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each architecture and consider the factors outlined in this analysis to make an informed decision that best suits the organization's digital experience goals.
Additionally, the evolving nature of Composable DXPs suggests that vendors should continue to refine and improve their offerings to fully realize this architecture's potential.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.