any pros/cons of AEM Helix/Franklin vs conventional AEM?

[jayv25585659]

I started off as a web developer so if I were to start in my AEM journey again, AEM Helix would be an easier transistion. But, that's not the case. I had to learn all the other tech stack that comes with AEM (Java, OSGI, JCR and etc).

I'm not really sure why would someone want to use Helix if conventional AEM is already used at the company. (or perhaps vice-versa. Why would someone move to conventional AEM if they are already using Helix?)

Thoughts? thank you!

EDIT1: How integrated are other frontend technologies like react with AEM Helix?

[Shashi_Mulugu]

@jayv25585659 i used both sides of world.. Helix aka AEM EDS can be used for most of marketing websites , blog posts , news sites etc.. where content is main driving factor which is controlled within that context.

But AEM is not away from EDS, EDS is of two types one with document authoring which is kind of away from AEM, but one more feature of EDS is AEM cloud EDS where you can create, manage content from within AEM cloud instances and delivery will be EDS..

[RiteshYadav18]

@jayv25585659 it depends on the use case, if the content is a main driving factor and the requirement is,  has to be headless, with limited content management capability like Google Docs, predefined template limited custom dev, fast content delivery, the limited integration.In such case use case would of a microsite, blog, simple marketing site etc. Helix has pros but not all ... and needs all of these with the advanced capability of a full-scale web app then conventional AEM is an option

[ManviSharma]

Hi Jayv,

AEM Helix provides a more accessible entry point for web developers transitioning to AEM, with a focus on modern development practices and frontend integration.

However, organizations with existing investments in conventional AEM may continue using it for its advanced features and customization capabilities. AEM Helix is designed to make it easier for developers, particularly those with a web development background, to create and manage content. It focuses on reducing the complexity that comes with traditional AEM development, which often requires understanding Java, OSGI, and other backend technologies.

[AmitVishwakarma]

Helix/Franklin (Decoupled, Headless)

Pros:

Great for frontend-focused development (React, Vue, etc.).
API-first (GraphQL/REST), perfect for cloud-native and JAMstack.
Easy to work with modern frontend frameworks and decouple the backend.

Cons:

Requires understanding backend AEM for integration.
More devops work for setting up CI/CD and cloud infrastructure.
May need custom development for AEM components.

Conventional AEM (Tightly Integrated)

Pros:

Full integration with AEM's authoring tools, DAM, and marketing features.
Ideal for content-heavy applications, with personalization and SEO built-in.
Proven for enterprise-scale applications.

Cons:

Steep learning curve with Java, OSGi, JCR.
Less flexibility for modern frontend frameworks like React.
Heavier, monolithic architecture.

Which to Choose?

Helix/Franklin: If you want a decoupled frontend, modern frameworks, and a headless CMS approach.
Conventional AEM: If you need tight integration, enterprise features, and a content-first approach.

React integrates easily with Helix, especially for SPA-like experiences.

[giuseppebag]

AEM Helix offers a decoupled, API-first approach that sits well with cloud-native, agile development. It makes it easier to integrate modern frontend frameworks like React, allowing teams to iterate and deploy quickly—though still requiring a knowledge of underlying AEM concepts.

On the other hand, AEM classic is a one-stop-shop environment with tightly integrated content management, digital asset, and marketing features. This combined configuration can have a steeper learning curve, but excels in enterprise environments where full feature bundling and high scalability are the top priorities.

Lastly, the choice is based on your priorities: choose Helix if you want modern speed of development and lean frontend workflow, or stick with classic AEM if deep integration and complete enterprise features matter more to your company.

[narendiran_ravi]

@jayv25585659 ,

Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) and Edge Delivery Services (EDS) serve different purposes and cater to distinct use cases. While AEM is a comprehensive enterprise CMS with powerful content management capabilities, EDS is designed for high-performance, front-end-driven experiences.

AEM (Adobe Experience Manager):

• Ideal for large enterprise websites that require robust content management features such as workflows, MSM (Multi-Site Manager), Digital Asset Management (DAM), and content governance.
• Used when backend content processing and structured content management are crucial.
• Best for traditional CMS-driven experiences with deep integrations into personalization, analytics, and marketing automation.

EDS (Edge Delivery Services)

1. Built for performance and scalability, delivering content closer to users via edge networks.
   Suitable for headless and front-end-heavy architectures where content is fetched dynamically from repositories like AEM, Google Docs, or other sources. This requires less time to onboard content authors as they are already familiar with Document authoring.
2. Ensures lightweight, decoupled front-end experiences with faster load times and improved SEO.
3. Ideal for scenarios where authors need simpler workflows without full AEM complexity.

This document https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-manager-cloud-service/content/edge-delivery/au...  will help you to determine which option to choose based on your business needs.