Joomla sits between WordPress and Drupal: more built-in structure than WordPress, less developer effort than Drupal. Its strengths are multilingual support, access control, and a flexible content system that come in core. Its weaknesses are a smaller extension market, a smaller pool of developers, and major version upgrades that can be disruptive for sites with many third-party extensions.
At a glance
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Multilingual sites supported in core | Smaller extension and template market than WordPress |
| Detailed user groups and access levels in core | Fewer developers available in many markets |
| Custom fields and flexible content organisation without add-ons | Steeper learning curve for new site owners |
| Free and open source under the GPL | Major upgrades can break older extensions and templates |
| Active volunteer project with regular security releases | Market share has declined over the past decade |
The pros
Multilingual in core
Joomla can run a site in multiple languages without an extension. You install language packs, create content in each language, and associate translations with each other. On WordPress the same result usually needs a plugin. For organisations that publish in several languages, this is one of the strongest reasons to choose Joomla.
Access control
Joomla’s user groups and viewing access levels let you decide who can see, create, edit, and publish each piece of content. That makes it a reasonable fit for member areas, intranets, and sites with several editorial roles, without adding a membership extension just to control visibility.
Content structure
Articles are organised into nested categories, and core custom fields let you add structured data to articles, users, and contacts. Menus are powerful: each menu item can define which content appears and which template and modules show with it. That gives more layout control from the admin panel than WordPress offers by default.
No licence cost
Like WordPress and Drupal, Joomla is free. The costs are hosting, add-ons, and labour, covered in more detail in what it costs to run a Joomla website.
The cons
A smaller ecosystem
The Joomla Extensions Directory is large, but it is a fraction of WordPress’s plugin directory, and the commercial template market is thinner. For common needs this rarely matters. For niche features, you are more likely to find nothing suitable, or to find an extension that has not been updated recently.
Fewer people who know it
Finding a Joomla developer, or a new one when your current developer moves on, is harder than finding WordPress help. That can raise hourly rates and increase the risk of a site becoming hard to maintain.
Learning curve
Joomla’s admin panel exposes a lot of options: menu items, modules, module positions, access levels, and categories all interact. That power is useful once understood, but new site owners often find WordPress easier to pick up for simple sites.
Upgrade friction
Joomla’s major versions have brought significant changes. Moving from Joomla 3 to Joomla 4 required many sites to replace templates and extensions that were not updated by their developers. Newer releases have aimed for smoother upgrades, but a site with many third-party extensions should still budget time for testing before each major upgrade.
Declining market share
Joomla was once among the most widely used CMSs. Its share has fallen as WordPress grew, which affects how many new extensions, tutorials, and hosting integrations appear. The project remains active, with regular releases and security fixes, but the ecosystem is smaller than it was.
When Joomla is a good fit
- Multilingual sites that want translation handled in core.
- Sites with several user groups that need different access to content.
- Organisations that already have Joomla skills in house or a trusted Joomla developer.
- Existing Joomla sites that work well and are kept up to date. Moving platforms has its own costs.
When to look elsewhere
- Simple blogs and brochure sites, where WordPress is usually easier and cheaper to run.
- Very large sites with complex content models, where Drupal is often the stronger choice.
- Sites that depend on a niche feature with no maintained Joomla extension.
For how Joomla’s content model compares with other platforms, see the Joomla platform notes. For a broader comparison of blogging platforms, see eight CMS platforms for blogging.