Before we could begin the research for the 2009 Open Source CMS Market Share Report, we first had to define the list of systems we considered to be contenders for the crown. Last year's report featured nineteen systems. (This year we plan to do things a bit differently, though you'll have to wait for the report itself to find out what exactly!) We started our internal discussions with the list of nineteen systems from last year, to which we added the significant number of suggestions from readers of the report.
Without giving away too much too soon, I wanted to share our final list of the Top 20 Open Source Web Content Management Systems. We list them here for you in alphabetical order, along with links to the project sites.
What was the criteria for inclusion on The List of Twenty? First, we are only concerned with web content management systems, aka WCM. Second, the system has to be available under an open source license, though dual-licensed products are eligible for consideration. Finally, to be eligible, the project must have released a new version of the software since the last report (July 2008).
The final List of Twenty is based on a simple criteria, that is, a direct comparison of the following three metrics, gleaned from five different sources:
While this methodology may be open to debate, for purposes of creating a "short list" of the most popular and prominent systems, I think it serves pretty well.
| system | project site |
|---|---|
| Alfresco | http://alfresco.com |
| CMSMadeSimple | http://www.cmsmadesimple.org |
| Concrete5 | http://www.concrete5.org/ |
| DotNetNuke | http://www.dotnetnuke.com/ |
| Drupal | http://www.drupal.org |
| e107 | http://e107.org |
| Elgg | http://elgg.org |
| eZ Publish | http://ez.no |
| Joomla! | http://www.joomla.org |
| Liferay | http://www.liferay.com |
| MODx | http://modxcms.com |
| OpenCMS | http://www.opencms.org |
| phpWebSite | http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
| Pligg | http://www.pligg.com |
| Plone | http://plone.org |
| Silverstripe | http://www.silverstripe.org |
| TikiWiki CMS+Groupware | http://tikiwiki.org |
| Typo3 | http://typo3.com |
| WordPress | http://wordpress.org/ |
| Xoops | http://www.xoops.org |
The list raises a number of interesting questions, among them, how did these projects come about and how are they sustained? For a project to rise to this level of prominence, it has to have achieved a high level of stability, innovation and reliability. In the open source world, how did that occur? Perhaps not surprisingly, there is no one dominant answer; these systems are the product of multiple approaches to the challenge of open source project governance.
The organizational structure of the List of Twenty breaks down as follows:
The community-driven projects represent what we can call "pure" open source, in the sense that these projects are not backed by corporate or commercial interests. These systems are the result of the collaborative efforts of a group of loosely-associated individuals. These projects offer only one version of the software, under a straight open source license.
| system |
|---|
| CMSMadeSimple |
| Concrete5 |
| e107 |
| MODx |
| phpWebSite |
| Xoops |
The Foundation-backed open source projects represent the next step in the evolution of "pure" open source. These projects tend to be larger and more established than the traditional community projects and as such benefit from having the backing of a properly organized corporate entity, albeit a non-profit (or in the case of some of the groups, a not-for-profit) corporation. The foundation structure means that the IP and other assets are held by the corporation rather than by any individuals. Like community-driven projects, these projects offer only one version of the system, under a straight open source license.
| system | foundation |
|---|---|
| Drupal | The Drupal Association |
| Joomla! | Open Source Matters, Inc. |
| Plone | The Plone Foundation |
| Typo3 | Typo3 Association |
| TikiWiki | Tiki Software Community Association |
Corporate-backed projects are open source, but with the backing of a single corporate entity with commercial interests. Most (but not all) of these projects offer more than one version of the system; typically one version free of charge under a straight open source license, and another version sold for a fee under more restricted licensing terms. Of the systems on this list that do not offer a dual licensing business model, the corporate partner looks to support, add-ons, training, or custom development for revenue.
| system | corporate backer |
|---|---|
| Alfresco | Alfresco Software, Inc. |
| DotNetNuke | DotNetNuke Corp. |
| Elgg | Curverider |
| eZ Publish | eZ Systems AS |
| Liferay | Liferay, Inc. |
| OpenCMS | Alkacon Software GmbH |
| Pligg | Pligg LLC. |
| Silverstripe | Silverstripe Ltd. |
| WordPress | Automattic, Inc. |
Comments
Some adjustments about TikiWiki CMS/Groupware
Hi Ric!
Interesting indeed to split by type of project/community.
Please use the full name for our project: TikiWiki CMS/Groupware
http://info.tikiwiki.org/Fact+Sheet
It's very important that people know that Tiki is so much more than a wiki :-)
Also, please move us in the "Foundation-Backed Projects" category.
http://tikiwiki.org/Tiki+Software+Community+Association
Please do contact me for any questions/stats/facts/etc about the project.
Best regards,
M ;-)
TikiWiki Info updates
Marc,
Thank you very much for writing about this. I've updated the info in the article and will also include it in the report.
best,
ric
Some adjustments about TikiWiki CMS/Groupware
Hi Ric!
These precisions (project name, association) didn't make it to the final report.
What is the normal procedure for us to report incorrect facts in the 2009 report?
For example, downloads are reported as 373 (Average weekly downloads). Here is data from SourceForge:
http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=64258&ugn=tikiw...
Sep 2009 8,224
Aug 2009 7,094
Jul 2009 8,828
Jun 2009 6,848
May 2009 7,404
Apr 2009 6,929
Mar 2009 8,320
Best regards,
M ;-)
Marc Laporte
TikiWiki CMS/Groupware
core downloads?
Marc,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the numbers on that link for ALL files? I'm only hashing the average core file downloads, so my selection set is narrower. Please check it out and let me know if I am off base here.
And thanks for posting!
best,
ric
In TikiWiki CMS/Groupware, "everything" is in the core!
Hi Ric!
Yes, they are for all downloads.
I thinks it's very wise that you are preoccupied about core vs extension downloads. In fact, having an application where functionality availability (download/support/documentation,etc) is very distributed, can increase statistics for downloads and plenty of other indicators.
TikiWiki CMS/Groupware has a different model than most projects. No, really! :-) Instead of a small core, and hundreds or thousands of extensions, pretty much all the possible functionality is available in a single download. Your choices are the version (2.4, 3.2, etc.) and if you prefer .zip, .bz2, etc. All (35+) languages and 6 themes are bundled.
All features are optional and you pick & choose what to activate. There also are "profiles" to help you get started. We feel this model has many benefits (avoid dependency hell, avoid feature duplication, inherent synchronized releases, etc.). The Tiki model is explained at http://tikiwiki.org/Model
The exceptions to what is in the core are called "Mods". This is for code that for some reason was not added to core. Ex.: licensing issue, too specific, too experimental, deprecated, etc.
http://mods.tikiwiki.org/
It is also used to distribute themes. Mods, expect for themes, are somewhat marginal. In any case, mods are not downloaded via SourceForge.net so they don't affect the stats.
Here are all files available for download:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/tikiwiki/files/
The "tiki add-ons" section contains very old things (2002-2005). I will remove this from SourceForge.net as it's old unsupported stuff.
There is also a tiki documentation section. The documentation is maintained, wiki-way on doc.tikiwiki.org but we make a snapshot in PDF every once in a while. I think we'll be doing this less & less because the last one for Tiki 1.9.x was nearly 1000 printable pages (!). And people tend to prefer to get the doc from the source and print out a few pages as needed. In any case, this section will remain.
Here are monthly stats for Tiki 3.1 (.zip file only)
Sep 2009 3,501
Aug 2009 2,758
Jul 2009 3,791
Source:
https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=64258&ugn=tiki...
But then, there is also (.tar.gz)
Sep 2009 452
Aug 2009 699
Jul 2009 1,255
Source:
http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=64258&ugn=tikiw...
And some people are still downloading older versions (3.0, 2.4, etc)
So the easiest way to have the most accurate count would be to take the current total and to subtract the figures for tiki-documentation and the old tiki add-ons. Considering these two folders have fairly old stuff, maybe it'll reduce the overall download count by 5-15%?
And this, as you have aptly pointed out in the report, doesn't include Fantastico installs. Since Fantastico also handles upgrades, this is a very compelling option. I wouldn't be surprised that Fantastico installs would be much higher than the number of downloads.
Best regards,
M ;-)
Marc Laporte
TikiWiki CMS/Groupware
good info -- thanks for that
Marc,
Thanks again for writing and helping us pin this down. This is good info and will certainly help us refine our numbers.
On another point -- I trialed TikiWiki for a client a while back. It was for an Intranet job. They eventually abandoned the whole project, but it was interesting for me as I'd never spent that much time with your project. I have to say, I thought there was a lot there. Seems to me the project has a lot of potential. I hope you guys are able to keep refining things and make it more competitive. I personally believe a lot of people under-estimate you guys.
best,
ric