Learn how Ghost and ProcessWire differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these traditional & flat-file cms tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Repository

Ghost appears to have several advantages over ProcessWire, particularly in popularity, growth, maturity, licensing and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Ghost significantly outpaces ProcessWire in community adoption with 55,221 stars compared to 1,149 stars on GitHub. This 48.1x difference suggests Ghost has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Ghost has 11,947 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Ghost is growing faster, adding 499 stars in the last 30 days (+0.9%) against adding 4 stars for ProcessWire (+0.3%). Ghost is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Ghost last updated 12 hours ago and ProcessWire 12 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Ghost uses JSX while ProcessWire leverages SCSS, PHP.
Ghost has been in development longer, starting 13 years ago, compared to ProcessWire which began 10 years ago. This 3.4-year head start suggests Ghost may have more mature features and established processes.
Ghost is licensed under MIT, while ProcessWire's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Traditional & Flat-File CMS. However, they also have distinct specializations: Ghost also focuses on Blogging Platforms while ProcessWire extends into Web Frameworks.
Ghost provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while ProcessWire may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.