AEM Frontend Architecture Guide: Classic, JAMStack, or EDS?

[#1]

AEM Frontend Architecture Guide: Classic, JAMStack, or EDS? 

by @daniel-strmecki

Introduction

Choosing the right frontend architecture in Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) is no longer just a technical decision; it’s a strategic one. Whether you opt for a classic AEM server-side component approach with HTL, a modern JAMStack implementation with frameworks like React and Next.js, or Adobe's Edge Delivery Services (EDS), each choice impacts time-to-market, SEO, authoring experience, and scalability. This guide will help you align your frontend architecture with your business goals and future-proof your digital experiences.

With AEM as a Cloud Service (AEMaaCS), Adobe has shifted towards a more composable and scalable content delivery model. The frontend layer is now a critical part of the decision-making process, influencing authoring workflows, site performance, operations, and integration flexibility. Businesses should choose an architecture that aligns with their operational needs and long-term digital strategies.

Key points

Adobe's roadmap clearly indicates a push towards composable architectures, with EDS and Universal Editor at the core. Businesses aiming for scalability, reduced DevOps overhead, and performance optimization should align their strategies with this direction. JAMStack remains a strong option for organizations with high digital maturity requiring full frontend autonomy, more control, and reusability.

The choice between Classic, JAMStack, and EDS frontend architectures in AEM isn’t a one-size-fits-all decision. It requires a clear understanding of business goals, authoring workflows, and technical capabilities. By aligning your frontend strategy with your long-term vision, you can ensure a scalable, performant, and future-ready digital presence.

To simplify your decision process, consider the following recommendations across all five options:

• Classic with Page Editor: Good for existing AEM projects that rely on editable templates, layout containers, style system, or personalization features like ContextHub. Suitable for teams deeply integrated into AEM workflows and requiring heavy customization.
• Classic with Universal Editor: Good for teams modernizing legacy implementations who want to retain HTL components while adopting Adobe’s next-generation authoring interface. A good interim step toward more composable models.
• JAMStack with Universal Editor: Best for projects demanding frontend flexibility, reusability, composability, and integration with multiple third-party systems. Suitable for teams with strong frontend and DevOps know-how.
• EDS with Universal Editor: Best for structured content scenarios where authors benefit from visual, in-context editing and reusable component schemas. Good fit for businesses aligning with Adobe’s composable DXP vision.
• EDS with Document Authoring: Ideal for high-volume content production with minimal layout requirements. Unlocks fast author enablement and new content creation and publishing with minimal reliance on developers.

Refer to the decision tree diagram below for a more comprehensive visual guide for choosing between the different AEM frontend architecture options. You can also explore the MindMeister version here.

Full Article

Read the full article on https://meticulous.digital/blog/f/aem-frontend-architecture-guide-classic-jamstack-or-eds to find out more.

Q&A

Please use this thread to ask questions relating to this article.

[#2]

@daniel-strmecki Thanks for putting this together, Daniel. It's a really insightful breakdown of the options and tradeoffs. The decision tree especially helps simplify a complex topic.

I’d love your perspective on: "Between Classic with Universal Editor and EDS with Universal Editor, how should teams think about the transition path? Is it best to view Classic+UE as an interim bridge, or do you see it being sustainable for certain organizations in the longer term?"

Looking forward to your thoughts. This is a great conversation starter!

[#3]

Hi @kautuk_sahni, thanks. Your question is hard to answer, but I'll try. My current view is NOT to recommend Classic with Universal Editor to clients, because the latter move to EDS would require completely rebuilding the frontend components. Therefore, my default recommendation is to do both at once - Universal Editor and EDS.

However, due to project complexity or other project-specific reasons, Classic with Universal Editor can be an interim step, but only if the client accepts some duplicate work as a consequence.