Overview

Editors change text, images, documents, blocks, galleries, events, and calendar content directly on the site. Each publish becomes a Git commit, fitting sites that already redeploy when their GitHub repository changes. This keeps editorial work close to the published page, but ties the workflow to GitHub and static-site infrastructure rather than a general-purpose hosted CMS.

Drafts, scheduled publishing, named versions, history, and restoration give owners meaningful control over changes and recovery. Content stays as plain HTML in the customer's GitHub repository on every plan, and the site can remain after Kiln is cancelled or left. That is a strong ownership position, though it does not remove the need to maintain the site and its deployment setup.

Key features

Editing, permissions, and review

Owners sign in with GitHub; invited editors and members can use Google sign-in without GitHub accounts. Owners can scope those accounts to pages or sections, which is useful when clients or departmental editors should touch only their own content. Comment-only reviewer seats allow feedback without editing, while suggest mode lets owners approve or decline proposed changes field by field. These controls support a deliberate review process, rather than giving every contributor unrestricted access.

Integrations and automation

Kiln works with GitHub repositories and hosts that redeploy on push, including Cloudflare Pages, Netlify, Vercel, and GitHub Pages. Its REST API and kiln-mcp let scripts and agents edit scoped, sanitized fields; optional AI assistance uses an API key supplied by the customer. That combination can fit teams automating content work while retaining boundaries around what can be changed. Uploaded documents are limited to 15 MB per file, a practical constraint for larger assets.

Security and site support

The GitHub App can access only repositories selected during installation, and only invited Google-email addresses can sign in as editors or members. Those controls align with Kiln's repository-centered model, though owners still need to manage invitations and repository selection carefully. Kiln supports static HTML sites and documents a source mode for Astro-generated sites. Teams using Eleventy, Hugo, or Jekyll should not plan on an adapter yet; those are planned to follow.

Pricing

Self-hosted costs 0.00 USD per free, billed Free forever. It is open source under AGPL-3.0, but the owner runs the worker and GitHub App and provides the site host. This is the right fit for teams comfortable operating those components; the zero price comes with real infrastructure responsibility. It includes community support on GitHub.

Kiln Cloud costs 4.99 USD per month, billed Monthly, recurring, with a 7-day free trial. It suits teams that want a paid option without taking the self-hosted route. Fully managed costs 14.99 USD per month, billed Monthly, recurring, also with a 7-day free trial, and includes priority support. That premium is most relevant to teams that value priority support; self-hosted plans include community support instead. No seat or usage quota is stated for these plans.

Concierge setup & tagging costs 399.00 USD per once, billed One-time. The optional service includes hand-tagging, menu and editor-access configuration, and one revision round. It is a setup purchase, not a recurring subscription.

Platforms

Kiln is available as a web product and API, with a self-hosted option. Its GitHub integration and Git-commit publishing make it a natural match for repository-based static-site deployment, rather than a fit for teams whose content lives outside that workflow.

Who it's for

Kiln is best for developers and agencies building static sites who need clients or non-technical colleagues to maintain content without code edits or direct repository access. It is particularly suitable when page-scoped permissions and approval matter, and the team wants published content to remain in its own repository. It is a weaker choice for teams that need a CMS for a non-static site, a non-Git publishing pipeline, or a supported adapter for Eleventy, Hugo, or Jekyll today.

Pros and cons

Pro: Content remains plain HTML in the customer's repository on every plan, and can be kept after leaving Kiln, reducing dependence on the CMS for the content itself.
Pro: Page and section scopes, comment-only reviewers, and field-by-field suggestions give owners several ways to delegate without surrendering editorial control.
Pro: The free forever self-hosted plan avoids a subscription and keeps the software open source, for teams able to operate its worker and GitHub App.
Con: Self-hosting requires the customer to run the worker and GitHub App and provide hosting, so free does not mean operationally hands-off.
Con: GitHub and static-site workflows are central to the product, limiting its fit for other repository providers or publishing models.
Con: The 15 MB per-file upload ceiling may rule out larger documents, and several popular static-site adapters remain planned rather than supported.

Alternatives

Git-Based CMS and Content Management Systems are useful starting points for comparing the wider category.

Choose Netlify instead when build and hosting workflow is the priority: its Free plan is 0.00 USD per free and includes 300 credits/month, 1 concurrent build, and 1 team owner. Kiln is the more focused choice for on-page content editing and review on a static site.

Consider TinaCMS if its free plan's 2 users and 2 roles suit a small team. Choose deco CMS if an open-source, self-hosted CMS core is the priority. Keystatic is another free, self-hosted option, with up to 3 users per team.

Sveltia CMS is worth considering for a free CMS with no account or subscription requirement and no hard content or user limits. Decap CMS offers a free plan for one site and one seat. HugoCMS is an alternative for teams focused on Hugo, while Quiqr is a free, open-source option for teams wanting a desktop and web footprint across major operating systems.

Verdict

Choose Kiln when a GitHub-backed static site needs controlled, page-level editing and a review path for people who should not work in code. Its defining advantage is pairing that editorial workflow with content ownership in the customer's repository. Look elsewhere if GitHub is not your publishing base, or if you need a site adapter Kiln does not yet support.

	Dotclear	Kiln
Free plan	No	Yes
Free trial	No	Yes
Paid from	—	$4.99/mo
Open source	No	No
Platforms	Web	api, self-hosted, Web
Free plan	Yes	Yes
Platform type	self_hosted	—
Editorial workflows	Yes	—
Multilingual content	Yes	—
SEO tools	Yes	—
Media library	Yes	—
Paid from	—	$4.99/mo

Dotclear vs Kiln

Dotclear

Kiln