If you’re building a product that relies on rich content, such as a CMS, LMS, or SaaS platform, you’ll eventually face the “cloud vs self-hosted” decision. It often appears early, then resurfaces as your product grows and new requirements emerge.
Cloud-based editors focus on speed and convenience, while self-hosted editors emphasize control and flexibility. But the real choice depends on more than features. Performance expectations, security and compliance needs, and long-term scalability all play a role.
There’s no universally “right” option. The best approach depends on your team, infrastructure, and product goals. This article breaks down the differences to help you choose based on your use case, not hype.
Key takeaways
There is no universal winner in the cloud vs self-hosted debate
Cloud-based editors prioritize speed, convenience, and low setup effort
Self-hosted editors offer stronger control, flexibility, and long-term predictability
Security, compliance, and performance needs often influence the decision
Choosing intentionally early can prevent costly migrations later
What is a cloud-based editor?
A cloud-based editor is hosted and managed by a third-party provider and accessed over the internet. Instead of installing the editor on your own servers, you connect to it as a service, usually through a subscription. The provider handles the infrastructure, hosting, and ongoing maintenance.
Cloud-based editor setup is minimal, updates are automatic, and scaling is largely handled for you. When new features or fixes are released, they’re typically rolled out without any action required from your team.
Explore the basics of cloud hosting.
What is a self-hosted editor?
A self-hosted editor is installed and run on your own infrastructure rather than being delivered as a hosted service. This could mean deploying it on your servers, a private cloud, or an on-premise environment. You control how the editor is configured, where it runs, and how it integrates with the rest of your system.
With a self-hosted WYSIWYG editor, updates and maintenance are managed by your team. While this requires more upfront effort, it also gives you flexibility. You decide when to upgrade, how features are enabled, and how the editor fits into your existing workflows and security policies.
Key differences at a glance
The table below summarizes the core differences between cloud-based and self-hosted editors across the areas teams most often care about.
AspectCloud-Based EditorSelf-Hosted EditorHosting & infrastructureHosted and managed by a third-party providerHosted on your own servers or private infrastructure*Setup timeVery fast, minimal configurationLonger initial setup and deploymentCustomization flexibilityLimited to provider-supported optionsHigh flexibility and deep customizationPerformance controlDepends on provider’s infrastructureFully optimized based on your stackData ownershipData handled through third-party systemsFull data ownership and controlSecurity & complianceProvider-managed, varies by vendorEasier to align with internal policiesCost structureSubscription-based, predictable short-termInfrastructure and maintenance costsDependency on third parties*High dependency on vendor availabilityLow dependency once deployed
Pros and cons of cloud-based editors
Cloud-based editors are often chosen for their convenience and speed, but they come with clear advantages and limitations.
Pros
Fast setup with minimal configuration
No need to manage servers or infrastructure
Automatic updates and maintenance handled by the provider
Easy to scale for early-stage or smaller projects
Predictable short-term costs through subscription pricing
Cons
Limited control over hosting and infrastructure
Performance depends on third-party servers
Potential data residency and data ownership concerns
Security and compliance options are constrained by the provider
Risk of vendor lock-in as the product grows
Pros and cons of self-hosted editors
Self-hosted editors offer a different set of trade-offs, focusing more on control and long-term flexibility.
Pros
Full control over data, hosting, and infrastructure
Easier to meet security, privacy, and compliance requirements
Greater flexibility for customization and integrations
Ability to optimize performance based on your own stack
Full control over upgrade timing with no forced updates
Cons
Requires initial setup and configuration
Ongoing maintenance and updates are your responsibility
Infrastructure management adds operational overhead
Longer time to get started compared to cloud-based solutions
When cloud makes more sense
Cloud-based editors are often the right choice when speed and simplicity matter more than deep control. For early-stage startups or small teams, cloud solutions reduce setup time and allow products to ship quickly without worrying about infrastructure or maintenance.
They also work well for proof-of-concept projects and MVPs. When the goal is to validate an idea or test user behavior, the flexibility and low upfront effort of a cloud editor can be a major advantage.
Teams without dedicated DevOps or infrastructure expertise often benefit from this model as well. By offloading hosting, scaling, and updates to a provider, developers can stay focused on building core features rather than managing systems.
In situations where customization needs are limited and content requirements are relatively simple, a cloud-based editor can provide everything needed with minimal overhead.
When self-hosted is worth considering
A self-hosted editor becomes more attractive as products mature and requirements become more specific. Teams handling sensitive or regulated data often lean toward self-hosted setups because they provide full data ownership and control. Content stays within your environment, making it easier to meet internal security policies and compliance standards.
Performance-critical platforms are another common case. When response times, availability, or regional performance guarantees matter, having direct control over infrastructure is better. This allows teams to optimize the editor as part of their existing stack rather than relying on third-party servers.
Self-hosted editors also make sense for long-term products where customization is a priority. As workflows evolve, teams may need deeper integrations, custom features, or tighter alignment with internal systems. A self-hosted approach offers the flexibility to adapt without being limited by a provider’s roadmap.
Finally, organizations with established infrastructure or clear upgrade policies often prefer self-hosted solutions. Being able to control update timing, avoid forced changes, and plan upgrades on your own schedule can reduce risk and provide greater predictability as the product scales.
Common myths about cloud vs self-hosted
Let’s explore some of the most common assumptions around cloud and self-hosted editors, and look at the practical reality behind each of them.
“Cloud is always more secure.”
Cloud providers invest heavily in security, but security isn’t automatic. How data is handled, stored, and accessed matters just as much as where it’s hosted. In many cases, self-hosted setups offer stronger control simply because teams can enforce their own security and compliance policies end to end.
Explore more about the security of cloud storage.
“Self-hosted editors are outdated.”
Self-hosted doesn’t mean old-fashioned. Many modern editors like Froala WYSIWYG editor are designed to run on private infrastructure while still supporting today’s frameworks, integrations, and performance expectations. It’s a deployment choice, not a reflection of capability.
“Cloud solutions are always cheaper.”
Cloud-based editors often look cost-effective early on, but expenses can increase as usage scales. Subscription tiers, usage limits, and add-ons may raise long-term costs. Self-hosted solutions usually require more upfront effort, but they can offer more predictable costs over time.
These assumptions persist because the comparison is often oversimplified. In practice, both models have valid strengths. The right choice depends on your product’s needs, not common myths.
Final thoughts: it depends, but choose intentionally
Cloud-based and self-hosted editors both have a place, and neither approach is inherently better than the other. The right choice depends on how your product is built today, and how you expect it to evolve over time.
Before deciding, it’s worth stepping back and evaluating a few key factors:
The size and capabilities of your team
Your security and compliance requirements
How much customization you’ll need, and
How critical performance and scalability are to your users.
A solution that feels convenient now may introduce limitations later, while a more controlled setup might offer flexibility you’ll appreciate as your product grows.
Ultimately, the most important thing is to choose intentionally. Understanding the trade-offs early can help you avoid costly migrations, rework, or architectural changes down the line, and set your product up for smoother growth in the long run.
FAQs
1. What is the main difference between cloud and self-hosted editors?
The main difference lies in hosting and control. Cloud-based editors are hosted and managed by a third-party provider, while self-hosted editors run on your own infrastructure, giving you full control over data, performance, and configuration.
2. Is a cloud-based editor better for startups?
Cloud-based editors often suit early-stage startups and MVPs because they offer fast setup, minimal maintenance, and lower upfront effort. However, as products scale, teams may reassess this choice based on security, customization, and long-term needs.
3. When should teams consider switching to a self-hosted editor?
Teams typically consider self-hosted editors when they need greater data ownership, stricter security or compliance controls, predictable performance, or deeper customization as their product matures.
Originally published on the Froala blog.
Top comments (0)