Shopify’s 2025 Editions vs. LinearCommerce: Are the Gaps Closed?
Mayank Patel
May 28, 2025
5 min read
Last updated May 28, 2025
Table of Contents
Shopify’s 2025 Upgrades at a Glance
Did Shopify Fix Its Historic Weaknesses?
Horizon Low-Code vs. Total Freedom
Progress, Yet Still a Walled Garden
Incremental SEO Gains, But Still Opinionated
Fewer Apps, But Shopify Still Isn’t Cheap
Key Takeaways
Share
Contact Us
Shopify’s Winter 2025 “Boring” Edition and anticipated Summer 2025 “Horizons” Edition rolled out over 150 new features each, aiming to shore up long-standing platform weaknesses.
From speed boosts to a brand-new “Horizon” theme system with AI, Shopify’s recent updates focus on making the platform faster, more flexible, and more capable out-of-the-box.
But how far do these improvements go toward fixing Shopify’s historical pain points in performance, customization, developer flexibility, SEO, cost, and app dependency?
Below, we break down Shopify’s latest changes, evaluate what problems they solve (or don’t), and compare them head-to-head with LinearCommerce’s stack to see where LinearCommerce still holds an edge for modern DTC brands.
Released in Dec 2024, focused on performance and polish over flash.
It delivered 50% faster cart loading and 59% faster payment button loads, new tools like Checkout Blocks (no-code customizations for thank-you pages), and extended many features to work in more places (e.g. checkout customizations now apply to draft orders too).
Shopify also introduced its AI assistant Sidekick globally, improved native product bundling (now usable in POS), and gave customer accounts a boost (subscriptions and loyalty info are now accessible in the login area).
Dozens of “quality of life” updates landed: offline POS payments, more automation in Shopify Flow, smarter analytics, and new product taxonomy tools like collection rules by product attributes and custom meta fields for categories.
As one summary put it, Winter ’25 was “not about brand new tools – it’s about making everything you already use work better, faster, and smarter.”
Launched May 2025, this update’s star is “Horizon,” Shopify’s new theme foundation focused on design freedom and AI.
Horizon brings 10 new pre-built themes and a modernized front-end that supports nested theme blocks for total layout flexibility. Merchants can now drag-and-drop sections anywhere and even use AI to generate custom theme sections by describing what they want (e.g. “a 3D tilt effect image gallery”).
The Online Store Editor got a major upgrade too – direct on-page text editing, reusable sections, conditional visibility settings, and an AI block generator all empower non-technical teams to make site changes without coding.
Shopify also doubled-down on AI integration. Sidekick can now reason through questions, execute commands (“create a 10% off discount for first-time buyers”), and even voice-chat or screen-share to guide merchants.
Beyond themes, Summer ’25 packs improvements for omnichannel and global selling. Shopify POS version 10 adds custom branded receipt screens, the ability to do mixed cart checkout (buy some items in-store, ship others), and store credit refunds – a “long awaited update” that keeps revenue in-store by refunding to a gift card instead of cash
Shopify Markets evolved into a true multi-entity, multi-market toolkit. Merchants (on Shopify Plus) can now sell under multiple business entities with different currencies from one store, use B2B and B2C pricing in one backend, and collect duties at checkout on all plans.
Shipping got smarter with flat-rate split shipping options (to prevent multi-location orders from double-charging shipping) and new carrier integrations. And notably, Apple Pay was moved into the regular checkout flow, so buyers can use it without skipping the upsell and discount code steps – a subtle change expected to lift conversion rates.
Let’s evaluate how much these 2025 improvements actually solve Shopify’s long-standing pain points – and where issues might persist:
Faster Sites and Checkout, But Mind the Apps
Shopify clearly made performance a priority in Winter ’25 and Summer ’25. The core online store is snappier, especially at critical points like cart and checkout. Even Shopify’s back-end got a boost. The admin now loads 30% faster in Summer ’25, and POS search can handle typos for quicker product lookup.
However, not all performance challenges vanish. Shopify stores can still suffer from theme bloat or excessive third-party scripts. The platform improvements help the baseline (e.g. Shopify’s own scripts and infrastructure), but if a merchant installs many apps that inject code, those can still slow down pages.
Shopify did try to mitigate this by releasing a new App Bridge that loads embedded apps faster, and by allowing more app code to run locally or deferred.
Still, ultimate site speed depends on how lean the theme and integrations are.
LinearCommerce’s LinearCore holds a natural edge here. As a dedicated stack, it’s engineered for performance without the multi-tenant overhead.
There’s no app store full of disparate scripts – most functionality is built-in or tightly integrated. That means a LinearCommerce site can be optimized end-to-end (from back-end processing to front-end delivery), often achieving better Core Web Vitals than a heavily app-laden Shopify store.
Shopify’s gap has shrunk with these editions (especially for stores that stick close to native features), but LinearCore’s architecture can still yield a faster, more consistent performance – important for DTC brands where every millisecond of load time matters.
Shopify’s historically rigid design framework (Liquid themes with fixed section structures and a locked-down checkout) has opened up considerably in 2025.
The Horizon theme framework is a game-changer for customization on Shopify. Merchants can now nest sections within sections, mix and match blocks, and essentially “make your own layouts” on the fly.
For example, you could drop a product carousel inside a lookbook section or add rich content blocks to a product page – things that used to require custom theme code or hacks.
One agency observed that Horizon “supports the newest features” with “native support for nested blocks, conditional settings, and layout copy-paste”, reducing the need for developers in daily content updates.
On top of that, AI-generated blocks can instantly create new section designs from a text prompt, which removes bottlenecks in content and frontend execution for marketing teams. Non-technical staff can now do in minutes what used to require a theme developer – a big win for agility.
But with great power comes caution. Developers warn that giving merchants so much no-code flexibility “often comes at the expense of UX and brand consistency.”
As one Shopify expert noted, “Could Horizon be too flexible for a merchant’s own good?” Without a careful design system, an enthusiastic team might make a mess of the site’s look and feel.
Additionally, Horizon’s advances mostly benefit the storefront. The checkout is still a standardized flow across Shopify stores.
Yes, Shopify now allows cosmetic tweaks (e.g. branding the checkout pages, or styling line items a bit) and Checkout UI Extensions for adding certain elements.
Shopify Plus merchants (or those using Functions) can insert custom logic in checkout, and Winter ’25 even extended those customizations to draft orders (a relief for teams who manually handled draft checkout quirks before).
Still, you cannot fully reinvent the checkout UX on Shopify – you work within Shopify’s framework.
By contrast, LinearCommerce’s LinearExperience module offers unbounded front-end freedom. LinearExperience is typically a headless or custom front-end solution, meaning brands can design every page – including checkout – exactly as they envision, with no template constraints.
Want a completely bespoke one-page checkout or a unique multi-step funnel? LinearExperience allows it. On Shopify you’d be fighting the platform to do the same.
Progress, Yet Still a Walled Garden
From a developer’s standpoint, Shopify in 2025 is much friendlier than it was a few years back.
Winter ’25 and Summer ’25 introduced a “next-gen” developer platform with features like local development servers (MCP), better logging and monitoring for custom Functions, and declarative data definitions. Shopify also expanded its Functions capability, continuing to replace the old Script Editor so developers can write custom backend logic for discounts, shipping, and more.
The idea is to let developers and AI handle the heavy lifting while merchants describe what they want. A merchant might say to Sidekick, “set up tiered volume discounts for VIP customers,” and Shopify uses Functions or APIs to make it happen.
But there are still limits that developer-centric teams notice.
Shopify’s theme system lacks native GitHub integration. CI/CD pipeline support is still absent. Developers often build their own tooling for version control and deployment. Hydrogen, Shopify’s React-based headless framework, was notably absent from Summer ’25 announcements, leading some to question whether Shopify is prioritizing the monolithic Liquid-Horizon path over fully headless flexibility.
You are still working inside Shopify’s sandbox. If the platform doesn’t expose something, or if the API lacks depth, you either build a workaround or wait for a roadmap update.
By contrast, LinearCommerce’s LinearCore and LinearExperience combination offers an open playground. You can access the codebase directly. You can use any tech stack, integrate without proxy limits, and deploy using your preferred devops pipelines.
SEO has always been a complicated area for Shopify. It handles the basics well, but its rigid URL structure, limited blog features, and opinionated routing have frustrated advanced teams.
The 2025 Editions bring small but welcome improvements. Product taxonomy is more flexible now. You can auto-create smart collections based on attributes or metafields. This helps merchants target long-tail keywords without third-party tools.
Search is more semantic. Shopify’s internal site search now understands natural queries better. Variants can be grouped in search results, which helps reduce clutter and avoids duplicate-ish content.
However, the native blog remains basic. There were no major upgrades in 2025. Structured content can now be added via metaobjects, and Horizon helps by letting you insert custom sections anywhere. But Shopify still lacks a full CMS for editorial workflows.
International SEO is a bright spot. Shopify Markets now supports multi-entity domains, local currency pricing, and correct hreflang handling. You can assign different storefronts by market and localize URLs cleanly.
But merchants still run into Market bugs. For instance, a “Buy Again” button might route a user to the wrong market. This creates duplicate content issues that can hurt SEO. Also, Shopify still doesn’t allow full control over URL paths. You can tweak robots.txt slightly now, but cannot change /products/ or deeply nest content types.
LinearCommerce allows full control. Developers can create any URL structure, customize metadata and schema sitewide, and even programmatically generate tags and redirects. Content marketers can build landing pages without working around platform limitations.
If your SEO strategy involves content depth, technical precision, or custom schema, Shopify remains constrained.
Shopify has reduced reliance on apps in key areas.
Native bundling, returns to store credit, and cookie consent are now built-in. Customers can view loyalty and subscription data inside their account area, which cuts down on frontend integration headaches. Shopify Campaigns allows pay-per-conversion marketing inside the admin panel, possibly replacing upfront ad spend.
But the a la carte model still dominates.
Most advanced features still require Shopify Plus or paid apps. If you want advanced filtering, that’s an app. If you want more than 100 variant options, that’s an app. If you want proper A/B testing, also an app. Many Shopify merchants run 10 or more third-party apps.
Common app-dependent features
A/B testing
Advanced filtering and sorting
Complex loyalty or review systems
Rich merchandising rules
CMS-style blogging
Custom analytics or heatmaps
On Plus plans, many core enterprise features unlock, but they come with a $2,000/month price tag. On lower tiers, brands often stitch together functionality using apps with their own fees, maintenance burdens, and compatibility issues.
LinearCommerce takes a different approach. Core features that Shopify splits into apps—returns, loyalty, CMS, analytics, forms—are part of one homogenous stack.
There is no gating of features based on plan. You can run a multi-store, multi-role architecture without having to upgrade tiers. And because there’s no app ecosystem dictating how you extend the system, you’re not exposed to vendor instability or breaking changes.
Shopify’s SaaS model is appealing for teams that don’t want to maintain infrastructure. That benefit is real. But LinearCommerce allows you to trade operational complexity for ownership and long-term cost control. For high-GMV brands, the economics can shift in favor of LinearCommerce quickly.
Key Takeaways:
Shopify’s Winter ’25 and Summer ’25 updates represent significant progress. For the average merchant, the platform is now faster, more flexible, and more natively capable than ever.
But that evolution doesn’t erase Shopify’s SaaS fundamentals. You are still extending a platform that serves millions of merchants, which means trade-offs in flexibility, ownership, and integration depth.
LinearCommerce is not for everyone. It demands more technical involvement and more up-front planning. But it was never designed for everyone. It was designed for brands that need more, especially those who optimize every micro-moment of the purchase experience.
Shopify 2025
LinearCommerce
Performance
Improved baseline, still app-sensitive
Optimized full stack
Design freedom
Horizon helps, but checkout is limited
Full freedom, end-to-end
Dev experience
More tools, still gated
Total access, no workarounds
SEO control
Improved metadata and taxonomy
Full technical SEO control
Cost at scale
Predictable SaaS plus add-ons
Higher initial, lower long-term TCO
Ecosystem dependency
Reduced, still app-heavy
Self-contained stack
For startups or teams with limited engineering capacity, Shopify remains a compelling way to get to market fast.
But for brands scaling into complexity, with deep requirements around speed, UX, checkout logic, content, or data flows, LinearCommerce offers something Shopify cannot.
We offer control.
Mayank Patel
CEO
Mayank Patel is an accomplished software engineer and entrepreneur with over 10 years of experience in the industry. He holds a B.Tech in Computer Engineering, earned in 2013.
The result of signal enrichment is a more complete problem diagnosis. We combine the quantitative (“how many, how often, where”) with the qualitative (“why, in what way, what’s the user sentiment”) to turn raw observations into actionable insights. Quant data may tell us that users are struggling, but it doesn’t tell us what specific problems they encountered or how to fi x them, for that, qualitative insights are needed.
Likewise, qualitative anecdotes alone can be misleading if not quantified. Thus, a core LinearCommerce strategy is to triangulate data. Every hypothesis should ideally be backed by multiple evidence sources (e.x. “Analytics show a 70% drop-off on Step 2 and session recordings show confusion and survey feedback cites ‘form is too long’”). When multiple signals point to the same issue, you’ve found a high-confidence target for optimization.
With a clear problem insight in hand, we move to forming an hypothesis. A hypothesis is a testable proposition for how changing something on the site will affect user behavior and metrics. Crafting a strong hypothesis helps you run experiments that are grounded in rationale, focused on a single change, and tied to measurable outcomes.
In the LinearCommerce framework, a good hypothesis has several key characteristics:
Rooted in Observation & Data
The hypothesis must directly address the observed problem with a cause-and-effect idea. We don’t test random ideas or “flashy” redesigns in isolation. We propose a change because of specific evidence.
For example: “Because heatmaps show the CTA is barely seen by users (only 20% scroll far enough) and many users abandon mid-page, we believe that moving the CTA higher on the page will increase click-through to the next step.” This draws a clear line from observation to proposed solution.
Specific Change (the “Lever”)
Defi ne exactly what you will change and where. Vague hypotheses (“improve the checkout experience”) are not actionable. Instead: “Adding a progress indicator at the top of the checkout page” or “Changing the ‘Buy Now’ button color from green to orange on the product page” are concrete changes.
Being specific is important both for designing the test and for interpreting results. Each hypothesis should generally test one primary change at a time, so that a positive or negative result can be attributed to that change. (Multivariate tests are an advanced method to test multiple changes simultaneously, but even then each factor is explicitly defined.)
Predicted Impact and Metrics
A hypothesis should state the expected outcome in terms of user behavior and the metric you’ll use to measure it. In other words, what KPI will move if the hypothesis is correct? For example: “…will result in an increase in checkout completion rate” or “…will reduce form error submissions by 20%”. It’s important for you to pick a primary metric aligned with your overall goal.
If your goal is more purchases, the primary metric might be conversion rate or revenue per visitor; not just clicks or time on page, which are secondary. Defining the metric in the hypothesis keeps the team focused on what success looks like.
Pitfall to avoid: choosing a metric that doesn’t truly reflect business value (e.g. click rate on a button might go up, but if it doesn’t lead to more sales, was it a meaningful improvement?). Teams must agree on what they are optimizing for and use a metric that predicts long-term value. For instance, optimizing for short-term clicks at the expense of user frustration is not a win.
“Because we see (data/insight A), we believe that changing (element B) will result in (desired effect C), which we will measure by (metric D).”
For example: “Because 18% of users abandon at the shipping form (data), we believe that simplifying the checkout to one page (change) will increase completion rate (effect), as measured by checkout conversion% (metric).”
After writing hypotheses, prioritize them.
You’ll generate many hypothesis ideas (often added to a backlog or experimentation roadmap). Not all can be tested at once, so rank them by factors like impact (how much improvement you expect, how many users affected), confidence (how strong the evidence is), and eff ort (development and design complexity).
A popular prioritization framework is ICE: Impact, Confidence, Ease. For instance, a hypothesis addressing a major dropout point with strong supporting data and a simple UI tweak would score high (and likely be tested before a hypothesis about a minor cosmetic change) rather than falling for the HIPPO effect (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion) or pet projects without data.
4. Experimentation (Without Pitfalls)
With hypotheses defined, we proceed to experimentation, where we run controlled tests to validate (or refute) our hypotheses. A disciplined experimentation process is crucial: it’s how we separate ideas that actually improve conversion from those that don’t. Below are best practices for running experiments, as well as common pitfalls to avoid.
Choose the Right Test Method
The most common approach is an A/B test; splitting traffic between Version A (control, the current experience) and Version B (variant with the change) to measure differences in user behavior. A/B tests are powerful because they isolate the effect of the change by randomizing users into groups.
For more complex scenarios, you might use A/B/n (multiple variants) or multivariate tests (testing combinations of multiple changes simultaneously), but these require larger traffic to reach significance. If traffic is limited, sequential testing (rolling out a change and comparing before/after, carefully accounting for seasonality) could be considered, though it’s less rigorous.
In any case, the experiment design should align with the hypothesis: test on the specified audience (e.g. mobile users if hypothesis was mobile-focused), run for the planned duration, and make sure you’re capturing the defined metrics (set up event tracking or goals if needed).
Run Tests to Statistically Valid Conclusions
Perhaps the biggest testing pitfalls are statistical in nature. It’s essential to let the test run long enough to gather sufficient sample size and reach statistical significance for your primary metric. Ending a test too early, for example, stopping as soon as you see a positive uptick can lead to false positives (noise being mistaken for a real win). This is known as the “peeking” problem.
To avoid this, determine in advance the needed sample or test duration based on baseline conversion rates and the minimal detectable lift you care about. Use statistical calculators or tools that enforce significance thresholds. Remember that randomness is always at play; a standard threshold is 95% confidence to call a winner.
Ensure Data Quality
Before trusting the outcome, verify the experiment was implemented correctly. Check for SRM (Sample Ratio Mismatch) if you intended a 50/50 traffic split but one variant got significantly more/less traffic, that’s a red flag that something is technically wrong (e.g. bucketing issue or flicker causing users to drop out).
Also monitor for tracking errors. If conversion events didn’t fi re correctly, the results could be invalid. It’s wise to run an A/A test on your platform occasionally or use built-in checks to ensure the system isn’t skewing data. Quality checks include looking at engagement metrics in each group (they should be similar if only one change was made) and ensuring no external factors (marketing campaigns, outages) coincided only with one variant.
Robust experimentation culture invests in detecting these issues, for example, capping extremely large outlier purchases that can skew revenue metrics or filtering bot traffic (which can be surprisingly high). Garbage in, garbage out; a CRO test is only as good as the integrity of its data.
Analyze Results Holistically
When the test period ends (or you’ve hit the required sample size), analyze the outcome with an open and scientific mind. Did the variant achieve the expected lift on the primary metric? How about secondary metrics or any guardrail metrics (e.g. it increased conversion but did it impact average order value or customer satisfaction)? It’s possible a change “wins” for the primary KPI but has unintended side effects (for example, a UX change increases sign-ups but also spikes customer support tickets).
Always segment the results as well. A variant might perform differently for different segments. Perhaps the new design improved conversions for new users but had no effect on returning users. Or it helped mobile but not desktop. These nuances can generate new hypotheses or tell you to deploy a change only for a certain segment. Avoid confirmation bias: don’t only look for data that confirms your hypothesis; also ask “what does the evidence truly say?” If the test showed no significant change, that's learning too.
A quick summary:
A “winner” that improves conversion by 0.2% may not be practically meaningful or could be noise. Focus on changes that move the needle in a practically significant way.
Watch out for uneven traffic splits, tracking errors, or external events affecting tests. An invalid test can mislead you with bogus results.
Make sure you measure success by metrics that align with long-term business goals (e.g. revenue, conversion to paid customer) rather than vanity metrics. Agree on your OEC upfront.
If you run multiple tests on the same audience concurrently, be careful of interaction effects. For instance, two tests on the checkout at once could influence each other’s outcomes. Stagger or isolate test audiences if possible to maintain clarity.
One A/B test on one site section gives you evidence for that context. Don’t overgeneralize (“this layout always wins”) without considering context. Re-test major changes if the context or audience changes (season, traffic source, etc.) to ensure the finding holds.
Sometimes a “failed” test can be tweaked and re-run. Treat experimentation as iterative. Maybe the first design wasn’t quite right, but a revised version could work. The key is to use the data to refi ne your understanding.
5. Continuous Improvement and Integration
A single A/B test can yield a nice lift; a CRO system yields compound gains over time by constantly learning and iterating. This stage involves institutionalizing the practices from the first four steps, managing a pipeline of experiments, feeding lessons back into the strategy, and ensuring your CRO eff orts mesh with the broader e-commerce stack.
Build a Continuous Feedback Loop
Think of the CRO process as a loop: Observe → Hypothesize → Experiment → Learn → (back to) Observe…. After an experiment concludes, you gather learnings which often lead to new observations or questions. For example, a test result might reveal a new user behavior to investigate (“Variant B won, suggesting users prefer the simpler form but we noticed mobile users still lagged, let’s observe their sessions more”).
Successful optimization programs embrace this loop. After implementing a winning change, immediately consider what the next step is, perhaps that win opens up another bottleneck to address. Conversely, if a test was inconclusive, dig into qualitative insights to guide the next hypothesis. By closing the loop, you create a cycle of continuous improvement.
Maintain a Prioritized Backlog
As you conduct observations and brainstorm hypotheses, maintain a CRO backlog (or experiment roadmap). This is a living list of all identified issues, ideas for improvement, and hypotheses, each tagged with priority, status, and supporting data. Treat this backlog similar to a product backlog.
Regularly update priorities based on recent test results or new business goals. For instance, if a recent test revealed a big opportunity in site search, hypotheses related to search might move up in priority. A well-managed backlog also prevents “idea loss,” good ideas that aren’t tested immediately are not forgotten; they remain queued with their rationale noted. Scale Up What Works
When a test is successful, consider how to scale that improvement. Deploy the change in production (making sure it’s implemented cleanly and consistently). Then ask: can this insight be applied elsewhere? For instance, if simplifying the checkout boosted conversion, can similar simplification help on the account signup flow? Or if a new product page layout worked for one category, should we extend it to other categories (with caution to test if contexts diff er)?
This is where CRO intersects with broader UX and product development. Good ideas found via testing can inform the global design system and UX guidelines. Integrate the winning elements into your design templates, style guides, and development sprints so that other projects naturally use those proven best practices.
Modern e-commerce sites almost universally employ faceted search and filtering to help users slice through a vast catalog. Faceted search (also called guided navigation) uses those product attributes as dynamic filters, for example, filtering a clothing catalog by size, color, price range, brand, etc., all at once.
This capability is a powerful antidote to the infinite shelf’s chaos. By narrowing the visible options step by step, facets give users a sense of control and progress toward their goal. Each filter applied makes the result set smaller and more relevant.
From an implementation standpoint, faceted search relies on indexing product metadata and often involves clever algorithms to decide which filters to show. With a large catalog, there may be tens of thousands of attribute values across products, so showing every possible filter is neither feasible nor user-friendly.
Instead, e-commerce search engines dynamically present the most relevant filters based on the current query or category context. For example, if a user searches for “running shoes,” the site might immediately offer facets for men’s vs women’s, size, shoe type, etc., instead of unrelated filters like “color of laces” that add little value.
By analyzing the results set, the system can suggest the filters that are likely to matter, essentially reading the shopper’s mind about how they might want to refine the search. This dynamic filtering logic is often backed by data structures like inverted indexes for search and bitsets or specialized databases for fast faceted counts.
Even with a great taxonomy and strong filters, two different shoppers landing on the same mega-catalog will have very different needs. This is where personalization and recommendation algorithms become indispensable.
Advanced e-commerce platforms now use machine learning to dynamically curate and rank products for each user. By analyzing user data: past purchases, browsing behavior, search queries, demographic or contextual signals, algorithms can determine which subset of products out of thousands will be most relevant to that individual.
Recommendation engines are at the heart of this personalized merchandising. These systems use techniques like collaborative filtering (finding patterns from similar users’ behavior), content-based filtering (matching product attributes to user preferences), and hybrid models to surface products a shopper is likely to click or buy.
For example, a personalization engine might note that a visitor has been viewing hiking gear and thus highlight outdoor jackets and boots on the homepage for them, while another visitor sees a completely different set of featured products.
User behavior analytics feed these models: every click, add-to-cart, and dwell time becomes input to refine what the algorithm shows next. Over time, the site “learns” each shopper’s tastes. The benefit is two-fold: customers are less overwhelmed (since they’re shown a tailored slice of the catalog rather than a random assortment) and more delighted by discovery (since the selection feels relevant).
A smart strategy is to vary the merchandising approach for different contexts and customers. For first-time or anonymous visitors (where no prior data is known), showing the entire endless catalog would be counterproductive.
It’s often better to present curated selections like bestsellers or trending products. This “warm start” gives new shoppers a manageable starting point instead of a blank page or an intimidating browse-all experience. On the other hand, returning customers or logged-in users can immediately see personalized recommendations based on their history. The key is using data wisely to guide different customer segments toward discovery without ever letting them feel lost.
Modern recommendation systems also use contextual data and advanced algorithms. For instance, some platforms adjust recommendations in real-time based on the shopper’s current session behavior or even the device they use. (Showing simpler, more general suggestions on a mobile device where screen space is limited can outperform overly detailed personalization, whereas desktop can offer more nuanced recommendations.)
Cutting-edge e-commerce architectures are exploring vector embeddings and deep learning models to capture subtle relationships between products and users to enable features like visual search or chatbot-based product discovery. We can build these algorithms. Talk to us.
Guiding Customers, Not Confusing Them
UX design choices play a huge role in whether the shopping experience feels inspiring or exhausting. Just because you can display thousands of products doesn’t mean you should dump them all in front of the user at once.
Above-the-Fold Impact
The content at the top of category pages, search results, and homepages is disproportionately influential. Critical items (whether they are popular products, lucrative promotions, or highly relevant personalized picks) should be merchandised in those prime slots. As a case in point, product recommendations or banners shown in the top viewport are roughly 1.7× more effective than those displayed below the fold.
Infinite Scroll vs. Structured Browsing
There is an ongoing UX debate in ecommerce about using infinite scrolling versus traditional pagination or curated grouping. Infinite scroll automatically loads more products as the user scrolls down. This can increase engagement time, as users don’t have to click through pages and are continuously presented with new items.
However, infinite scroll can also backfire if not implemented carefully. If shoppers feel they are wading through a bottomless list, they may give up. And once they scroll far, finding their way back or remembering where something was can be difficult. User testing has found that people have a limited tolerance for scrolling, after a certain point, they either find something that catches their eye or they tune out.
A balanced approach is often best. Many sites employ a hybrid: load a substantial chunk of products with an option to “Load More” (giving the user control), or use infinite scroll but with clear segmentation and filtering options always visible.
Aside from search and filters, consider adding guided discovery tools in the UX. This might include features like dynamic product groupings, recommendation carousels, or wizards and quizzes. For example, you can programmatically create curated “shelves” on the fly: e.x. a “Best Gifts for Dog Lovers” collection that appears if the user’s behavior suggests interest in pet products.
These can be powered by the same algorithms we discussed earlier, which can identify meaningful product groupings from trends in data. Such groupings address a common UX gap: a customer may be looking for a concept (“cream colored men’s sweater” or “outdoor kitchen ideas”) that doesn’t neatly map to a single pre-defined category.
Relying solely on static navigation might give them poor results or force them to manually hunt. By dynamically detecting intent clusters and generating pages or sections for them, you improve the chance that every user finds a relevant path. It’s impractical for human merchandisers to pre-create pages for every niche query (there could be effectively infinite intents), so this is an area where algorithmic assistance shines.
Conclusion
Merchandising is no longer a downstream activity that happens after inventory is set; it’s upstream, shaping how catalogs are structured, how data is modeled, and how algorithms are trained. Teams that treat merchandising as a technical capability—not just a marketing function—will be positioned to turn complexity into competitive advantage.
Medusa exposes a RESTful API by default for both storefront and admin interactions. This straightforward approach often means easier onboarding for developers (REST is ubiquitous and simple to test). Saleor is strictly GraphQL API, all queries and mutations go through GraphQL endpoints. Vendure by design also uses GraphQL APIs for both its shop and admin endpoints.
(Vendure does allow adding REST endpoints via custom extensions if needed, but GraphQL is the primary interface).
There are pros and cons here:
GraphQL allows more flexible data retrieval (clients can ask for exactly what they need), which is great for complex UI needs and can reduce network requests. However, GraphQL adds complexity, you need to construct queries and manage a GraphQL client.
REST, on the other hand, is simple and cache-friendly but can sometimes require multiple requests for complex pages.
Importantly, for those who care about GraphQL vs REST, Medusa historically did not have a built-in GraphQL (though you could generate one via OpenAPI specs or community projects), whereas Saleor and Vendure natively support GraphQL out-of-the-box.
If GraphQL is a must-have for you or your dev team, Saleor and Vendure tick that box easily; Medusa might require some extra work or using its REST endpoints.
On the flip side, if GraphQL seems overkill for your needs, Medusa’s simpler REST approach can be a relief. (Note: GraphQL being “language agnostic” means even if Saleor’s core is Python, you can consume its API from any stack; an argument some make that the core language matters a bit less if you treat the platform as a standalone service.)
Architecture and Modular Design
All three are headless and API-first, meaning the back-end business logic is decoupled from any front-end. They each allow (or encourage) running additional services for certain tasks:
Medusa
The architecture is relatively monolithic but modular internally. You run a Medusa server which handles all commerce logic and exposes APIs. Medusa’s philosophy is to keep the core simple and let functionality be added via plugins (which run in the same process).
This design avoids a microservices explosion for small projects; everything is one Node process (plus a database and perhaps a search engine). This is great for smaller teams. Medusa uses a single database (by default Postgres) for storing data, and you can deploy it as a single service (with optional separate services for things like a storefront or an admin dashboard UI).
Saleor
Saleor’s architecture revolves around Django conventions. It’s also monolithic in the sense that the Saleor server handles everything (GraphQL endpoints, business logic, etc.) in one service, backed by a PostgreSQL database. However, Saleor encourages a slightly different extensibility model: you can extend by writing “plugins” within the core or by building “apps” (microservices) that integrate via webhooks and the GraphQL API.
This dual approach means if you want to alter core behavior deeply, you might write a Python plugin that has access to the database and internals. Or, if you prefer to keep your extension separate (or write it in another language), you can create an app that talks to Saleor’s API from the outside and is authorized via API tokens.
The latter is useful for decoupling (and is language-agnostic), but it means that extension can only interact with Saleor through GraphQL calls and webhooks, not direct DB access. Saleor’s design also supports containerization and scaling; it’s easy to run Saleor in Docker and scale out the services (plus it has support for background tasks and uses things like Celery for asynchronous jobs in newer versions).
Vendure
Vendure is structured as a Node application with a built-in modular system. It runs as a central server (plus an optional separate worker process for heavy tasks). Vendure’s internal architecture is plugin-based: features like payment processing, search, etc., are implemented as plugins that can be included or replaced.
Developers can write their own plugins to extend functionality without forking the core. Vendure uses an underlying NestJS framework, which imposes a certain organized structure (modules, providers, controllers, etc.) that leads to a clean separation of concerns.
It also means Vendure can benefit from NestJS features like dependency injection and middleware. Vendure includes a separate Worker process capability, e.x., for sending emails or updating search indexes asynchronously, a background worker can be run to offload those tasks. This is great for scalability, as heavy operations don’t block the main API event loop.
Vendure’s use of GraphQL and a strongly typed schema also means frontends can auto-generate typed SDKs (for example, generating TypeScript query hooks from the GraphQL schema).
Admin & Frontend Architecture
It’s worth noting how each handles the Admin dashboard and starter Storefronts, since these are part of architecture in a broad sense:
Medusa Admin
Medusa provides an admin panel (open source) built with React and GatsbyJS (TypeScript). It’s a separate app that communicates with the Medusa server over REST. You can deploy it separately or together with the server.
The admin is quite feature-rich (products, orders, returns, etc.) and since it’s React-based, it’s relatively straightforward for JS developers to customize or extend with new components. Medusa’s admin UI being a decoupled frontend means it’s optional, if you wanted, you could even build your own admin or integrate Medusa purely via API; but most users will use the provided one for convenience.
Saleor Admin
Saleor’s admin panel is also decoupled and is built with React (they have a design system called Macaw-UI). It interacts with the Saleor core via GraphQL. You can use the official admin or fork/customize it if needed. Saleor allows creating API tokens for private apps via the admin, so you can integrate external back-office systems easily. Saleor’s admin is quite polished and supports common tasks (managing products, orders, discounts, etc.). As with Medusa, the admin is essentially a client of the backend API.
Vendure Admin
Vendure’s admin UI comes as a default part of the package; implemented in Angular and delivered as a plugin (AdminUiPlugin) that serves the admin app. By default, a standard Vendure installation includes this admin. Administrators access it to manage catalog, orders, settings, etc.
Even if you’re not an Angular developer, you can still use the admin as provided. Vendure documentation notes that you “do not need to know Angular to use Vendure” and that the admin can even be extended with custom UI extensions written in other frameworks (they provide some bridging for that).
However, major custom changes to the admin likely require Angular skills. Some teams choose to build a custom admin interface (e.g., in React) by consuming Vendure’s Admin GraphQL API, but that’s a bigger effort. So out-of-the-box, Vendure gives you a functioning admin UI which is sufficient form many cases, though perhaps not as slick as Medusa’s or Saleor’s React-based UIs in terms of look and feel.
Storefronts
All three being headless means you’re expected to build or integrate a storefront. To jump-start development, each provides starter storefront projects:
Medusa offers a Gatsby starter that’s impressively full-featured, including typical e-commerce pages (product listings, cart, checkout) and advanced features like customer login and order returns, all wired up to Medusa’s backend. It basically feels like a ready-made theme you can customize, which is great for fast prototyping. Medusa also has starters or example integrations with Next.js, Nuxt (Vue), Svelte, and others.
Saleor provides a React/Next.js Storefront starter (sometimes referred to as “Saleor React Storefront”). It’s a Next.js app that you can use as a foundation for your shop, already configured to query the Saleor GraphQL API. This covers basics like product pages, cart, etc., but might not be as feature-complete out of the box as Medusa’s Gatsby starter (for example, handling of returns or customer accounts might require additional work).
Vendure, as mentioned, has official starters in Remix, Qwik, and Angular. These starter storefronts include all fundamental e-commerce flows (product listing with facets, product detail, search, cart, checkout, user accounts, etc.) using Vendure’s GraphQL API. The Remix and Qwik starters are particularly interesting as they focus on performance (Remix for fast server-rendered React, Qwik for ultra-fast hydration). Vendure thus gives a few choices depending on your front-end preference, though notably, there isn’t an official Next.js starter from Vendure’s team as of 2025. However, the community or third parties might provide one, and in any case, you can build one easily with their GraphQL API.
Core Features Comparison
All modern e-commerce platforms cover the basics: product listings, shopping cart, checkout, order management, etc. However, differences emerge in how features are implemented and what is provided natively vs. via extensions. Let’s compare some key feature areas and note where each platform stands out:
Product Catalog Management
Product Models
Products in Medusa can have multiple variants (for example, a T-shirt with different sizes/colors) and are grouped into Collections (a collection is essentially a group of products, often used like categories). Medusa also supports tagging products with arbitrary tags for additional grouping or filtering logic.
Medusa’s philosophy is to keep the core product model fairly straightforward, and encourage integration with external Product Information Management (PIM) or CMS if you need extremely detailed product content (e.g., rich descriptions, multiple locale content, etc.). It does provide all the basics like images, description, prices, SKUs, etc., and inventory tracking out of the box.
Saleor’s product catalog is a bit more structured. It supports organizing products by Categories and Collections. A Category in Saleor is a tree structure (like traditional e-commerce categories) and a Collection is more like a curated grouping (similar to Medusa’s collections).
Saleor also has a notion of Product Types and attributes; you can define custom product attributes and assign them to types (for example, a “Shoes” product type might have size and color attributes). These attributes can then be used as filters on the storefront.
This system provides flexibility to extend product data without modifying code, which can be powerful for store owners. Saleor supports multiple product variants per product as well (with the attributes distinguishing them).
As for tagging, Saleor doesn’t have simple tags via the admin either (at least as of that comparison), but because it has custom attributes and categories, that gap is usually filled by those features.
Saleor’s admin also allows adding metadata to products if needed, and its GraphQL API is quite adept at querying any of these structures.
Vendure combines aspects of both. It has Product entities that can have variants, and it supports a Category-like system through a feature called Collections (Vendure’s Collections are hierarchical and can have relations, effectively serving the role of categories).
Vendure also allows defining Custom Fields on products (and other entities) via configuration, meaning you can extend the data model without hacking the core. For example, if you want to add a “brand” field to products, Vendure lets you do that through config and it will generate the GraphQL schema for it. This is part of Vendure’s extensibility.
Vendure supports facets/facet values which can be used as product attributes for filtering (similar to Saleor’s attributes).
Vendure provides a highly customizable catalog structure with a bit of coding, whereas Saleor provides a lot through the admin UI, and Medusa keeps it simpler (with the option to integrate something like a CMS or PIM for additional product enrichment).
Multi-Language (Product Content)
Saleor has built-in multi-language support for product data. Product names, descriptions, etc., can be localized in multiple languages through the admin, and the GraphQL API allows querying in a specified language. This is one of Saleor’s selling points (multi-language, multi-currency).
Vendure supports multi-language by marking certain fields as translatable. Internally, it can store translations for product name, slug, description, etc., in different languages. This is configured at startup (you define which languages you support), and the admin UI allows inputting translations. It’s quite robust in that area for an open-source platform.
MedusaJS does not natively have multi-language fields for products in the core. Typically, merchants using Medusa would handle multi-language by using an external CMS to store translated content (for example, using Contentful or Strapi with Medusa, as suggested by Medusa’s docs).
The Medusa backend itself might not store a French and English version of a product title; you’d either store one in the default language or use metadata fields or region-specific products. However, Medusa’s focus on regions is more about currency and pricing differences, not translations.
Recognizing this gap, the community has created plugins to assist with multilingual catalogs (for instance, there’s a plugin that works with MeiliSearch to index products with internationalized fields). Moreover, Medusa’s Admin recently introduced multi-language support for the admin interface (so the admin UI labels can be in different languages), but that’s separate from actual product content translation.
For a primarily single-language store or one with minimal translation needs, Medusa’s approach is fine, but if you have a complex multi-lingual requirement, Saleor or Vendure may require less custom work.
Multi-Currency and Regional Settings
A highlight of Medusa is its multi-currency and multi-region support. In Medusa, you can define Regions which correspond to markets (e.g., North America, Europe, Asia) and each region has a currency, tax rate, and other settings.
For example, you can have USD pricing for a US region and EUR pricing for an EU region, for the same product. Medusa’s admin and API let you manage different prices for different regions easily. This is extremely useful for DTC brands selling internationally. Medusa also supports setting different fulfillment providers or payment providers per region.
Saleor supports multi-currency through its Channels system. You can set up multiple channels (which could be different countries, or different storefronts) each with their own currency and pricing. Saleor even allows differentiating product availability or pricing by channel.
This covers the multi-currency need effectively (Saleor’s demo often shows, for instance, USD and PLN as two currencies for two channels). Tax calculation in Saleor can integrate with services or be configured per channel as well. So, Saleor is on par with Medusa in multi-currency capabilities, and it additionally handles multi-language as mentioned. It’s truly built for multi-market operation.
Vendure has the concept of Channels too. Channels can represent different storefronts or regions (for example, an EU channel and a US channel). Each channel can have its own currency, default language, and even its own payment/shipping settings.
Vendure allows products to be in multiple channels with different prices if needed. This is basically how Vendure supports multi-currency and multi-store scenarios. It’s quite flexible, although configuring and managing multiple channels requires deliberate setup (like creating a channel, assigning products, etc.).
Vendure’s approach is powerful for multi-tenant or multi-brand setups as well (one Vendure instance could serve multiple shops if configured via channels and perhaps some custom logic).
Search and Navigation
Medusa does not have a full-text search engine built into the core; instead, it provides easy integrations for external search services. You can query products by certain fields via the REST API, but for advanced search (fuzzy search, relevancy ranking, etc.), Medusa leans on plugins.
The Medusa team has provided integration guides or plugins for MeiliSearch and Algolia, two popular search-as-a-service solutions. For example, you can plug in MeiliSearch and have typo-tolerant, fast search on your catalog.
This approach means a bit of setup but results in a better search experience than basic SQL filtering. The trade-off is that search is as good as the external system you use and if you don’t configure one, you only have simple queries.
Saleor’s approach (at least up to recently) for search was relatively basic; you could perform text queries on product name or description via GraphQL to implement a simple search bar. It did not include a built-in advanced search engine or ready connectors to one at that time.
Essentially, to get a robust search in Saleor, you might need to use a third-party service or write a plugin/app. Given that Saleor is GraphQL, one could use something like ElasticSearch by syncing data to it, but that requires development work (some community projects likely exist). In an enterprise context, it’s expected you’ll integrate a dedicated search system.
Vendure includes a built-in search mechanism which is pluggable. By default, it uses a simple SQL-based search (with full-text indexing on certain fields) to allow basic product searches and filtering by facets. For better performance or features, Vendure provides an ElasticsearchPlugin, a drop-in module that, when enabled, syncs product data to Elasticsearch and uses that for search queries.
There’s also mention of a Typesense-based advanced search plugin in development. This shows Vendure’s emphasis on modularity: you can start with the default search and later move to Elastic or another search engine by adding a plugin, without changing your storefront GraphQL queries. Vendure’s search supports faceted filtering (e.g., by attributes, price ranges, etc.), especially when using Elasticsearch. This is great for storefronts with category pages that need filtering by various criteria.
Checkout, Orders, and Payments
All three platforms handle the full checkout flow including cart, payment processing (via integrations), and order management, but with some nuances:
Checkout Process & Shopping Cart
Each platform provides APIs to manage a shopping cart (often called an “order draft” or similar) and then convert it to a completed order at checkout.
MedusaJS has built-in support for typical cart operations (add/remove items, apply discounts, etc.) and a checkout flow that can be customized. Medusa’s APIs handle everything from capturing customer info to selecting shipping and payment method, placing the order, and then updating order status as fulfillment happens.
Saleor similarly has a checkout object in its GraphQL API, where you add items, set shipping, payment, etc., and then complete an order. Saleor’s logic is quite robust, covering digital goods, multiple shipments, etc., because of its focus on enterprise scenarios.
Vendure’s API includes a “shop” GraphQL endpoint where unauthenticated or authenticated users can manage an active order (cart) and proceed to checkout. Vendure even has features like order promotions and custom order states (through its workflow API) if needed.
Payment Gateway Integrations
Medusa ships with several payment providers integrated: Stripe, PayPal, Klarna, Adyen are supported. Medusa abstracts payment logic through a provider interface, so adding a new gateway (say Authorize.net or Razorpay) is a matter of either installing a community plugin or writing a small plugin yourself to implement that interface.
Thanks to this abstraction, developers have successfully extended Medusa with many region-specific providers too. Medusa does not charge any transaction fees on top; you use your gateway directly (and with the new Medusa Cloud, the team behind Medusa emphasize they don’t take a cut either).
Saleor supports Stripe, Authorize.net, Adyen out of the box, and through its plugin system, it also has integration for others like Braintree or Razorpay. Being Python, if an API exists for a gateway, you can integrate it via a Saleor plugin in Python.
Saleor’s approach to payments is also abstracted (it had a payment plugins interface). So both Medusa and Saleor cover the common global gateways, with Saleor perhaps having a slight edge in some additional regional ones via community (e.g., Razorpay as mentioned).
Vendure has a robust plugin library that includes payments such as Stripe (there’s an official Stripe plugin), Braintree, PayPal, Authorize.net, Mollie, etc. Vendure’s documentation guides on implementing custom payment processes as well. So Vendure’s coverage is quite broad given the community contributions.
Order Management & Fulfillment
Medusa shines with some advanced features here. It supports full Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) workflows. This means customers can request returns/exchanges, and Medusa’s admin allows processing returns, offering exchanges or refunds, tracking inventory back, etc. Medusa also uniquely has the concept of Swaps: allowing exchanges where a returned item can trigger a new order for a replacement.
These are sophisticated capabilities usually found in more expensive platforms, and having them in Medusa is a big plus for fashion and apparel DTC brands that deal with returns often. Medusa’s admin and API let you handle order status transitions (payment authorized, fulfilled, shipped, returned, etc.), and it can integrate with fulfillment providers or you can handle it manually via admin.
Saleor covers standard order management. You can see orders, update statuses, process payments (capture or refund), etc. However, a noted difference is that Saleor’s approach to returns/refunds was a bit more manual or basic at least in earlier versions.
There isn’t a built-in automated RMA flow; a store operator might have to mark an order as returned and manually create a refund in the payment gateway or such. They may improve this over time or provide some apps, but it isn’t as streamlined as Medusa’s RMA feature.
For many businesses, this might be acceptable if returns volume is low or they handle it via customer service processes. But it’s a point where Medusa clearly invested effort to differentiate (likely because Shopify’s base offering lacks easy returns handling too, and Medusa wanted to cover that gap).
Vendure’s core includes order states and a workflow that can be customized. It doesn’t natively have a “magic” RMA module built-in to the same degree, but you can implement returns by leveraging its order modifications.
Vendure does allow refunds (it has an API for initiating refunds through the payment plugins if supported), and partial fulfillments of orders, etc. If a robust returns system is needed, it might require some custom development or use of a community plugin in Vendure. Since Vendure is very modular, one could create a returns plugin that automates some of that.
Discounts and Promotions
Medusa supports discount codes and gift cards from within its own functionality. You can create percentage or fixed-amount discounts, limit them to certain products or customer groups, set expiration, etc. Medusa allows product-level discounts (specific products on sale) easily. It also has a gift card system which many platforms don’t include by default.
Saleor also supports discounts (vouchers) and gift cards. Saleor’s discount system can apply at different levels; one interesting note is that Saleor can do category-level discounts (apply to all products in a category), which might be a built-in concept. Saleor, being oriented to marketing needs, has quite an extensive promotions logic including “sales” and “vouchers” with conditions and requirements.
Vendure includes a Promotions system where you can configure promotions with conditions (e.g., order total above X, or buying a certain product) and actions (e.g., discount percentage or free shipping). It’s quite flexible and is done through config or the admin UI. Vendure doesn’t call them vouchers but you can set up coupon codes associated with promotions. Gift cards might not be in the core, but could be implemented or might exist as a plugin.
Extensibility and Customization
One of the biggest reasons to choose a headless open-source solution over a SaaS platform is the ability to customize and extend it to fit your business, rather than fitting your business into it. Let’s compare how our three contenders enable extension:
MedusaJS is designed with a plugin architecture from the ground up. Medusa encourages developers to add features via plugins rather than forking the code. A plugin in Medusa is essentially an NPM package that can hook into Medusa’s backend; it can add API endpoints, extend models, override services, etc.
For instance, if you wanted to integrate a third-party ERP, you could write a plugin that listens to order creation events and sends data to the ERP. Medusa also prides itself on allowing replacement of almost any component; you could even swap out how certain calculations work by providing a custom implementation via dependency injection (advanced use-case).
Saleor’s extensibility comes in two flavors as noted: Plugins (in-process, written in Python) and Apps (out-of-process, language-agnostic). Saleor’s plugins are used for things like payment gateways, shipping calculations, etc., and run as part of the Saleor server. If you have a specific business logic (say, a custom promotion rule), you might implement it as a plugin so that it can interact with the core logic and database.
On the other hand, Saleor introduced a concept of Saleor Apps which are somewhat analogous to Shopify apps; they are separate services that communicate via the GraphQL API and webhooks. An app can be hosted anywhere, subscribe to events (like “order created”) via webhook, and then call back to the API to do something (like add a loyalty reward, etc.).
This decouples the extension and also means you could use any programming language for the app. The admin panel allows store staff to install and manage these apps (grant permissions, etc.). The advantage of the app approach is safer upgrades (your app doesn’t hack the core) and more flexibility in tech stack; the downside is a slight overhead of maintaining a separate service and the limitations of only using the public API.
Vendure takes an extreme plugin-oriented approach. Almost all features in Vendure (payments, search, reviews, etc.) are implemented as plugins internally, and you can include or exclude them in your server setup. Writing a Vendure plugin means writing a TypeScript class that can tap into the lifecycle of the app, add new GraphQL schema fields, override resolvers or services, etc.
The core of Vendure provides the commerce primitives, and you compose the rest. This is why some view Vendure as ideal if you have very custom requirements. The community has contributed plugins for many needs (reviews system, wishlist, loyalty points, etc.). Vendure’s official plugin list includes not only integrations (like payments, search) but also features (like a plugin that adds support for multi-vendor marketplace functionality, which is something a company might need to add to create a marketplace).
Enterprise Support and Hosting
As of 2025, Medusa has introduced Medusa Cloud, a managed hosting platform for Medusa projects. This caters to teams that want the benefits of Medusa without dealing with server ops. The Medusa Cloud focuses on easy deployments (with Git integration and preview environments) and transparent infrastructure-based pricing (no per-transaction fees).
This shows that Medusa is evolving to serve more established businesses that might require uptime guarantees and easier scaling. Apart from that, Medusa’s core being open-source means you can self-host on AWS, GCP, DigitalOcean, etc., using Docker or Heroku or any Node hosting. Many early-stage companies go that route to save cost.
Saleor Commerce (the company) offers Saleor Cloud, which is a fully managed SaaS version of Saleor. It’s targeted at mid-to-large businesses with a pricing model that starts in the hundreds of dollars per month. This service gives you automatic scaling, backups, etc., and might be attractive if you don’t want to run your own servers.
However, it’s a significant cost that perhaps only later-stage businesses or those with no devops inclination would consider. Saleor’s open-source can also be self-hosted in containers; some agencies specialize in hosting Saleor. Because Saleor is more complex to set up (with services like Redis, etc., possibly needed), the cloud option is a convenient but pricey offering.
Vendure’s company does not currently offer a public cloud SaaS. They focus on the open-source product and consulting. That said, because Vendure is Node, you can host it similarly easily on any Node-friendly platform. Some third-party hosting or PaaS might even have one-click deployments for Vendure.
From a total cost of ownership perspective: all three being open-source means you avoid licensing fees of traditional enterprise software. If self-hosted, your costs are infrastructure (cloud servers, etc.) and developer time.
Saleor might incur higher dev costs if you need both Python and front-end expertise, and possibly higher infrastructure if GraphQL/Python stack needs more scaling.
Medusa and Vendure could be more resource-efficient for moderate scale (Node can handle a lot on modest hardware, and you can optimize with cluster mode, etc.).
Performance and Scalability Considerations
For any growing business, the platform needs to handle increased load: more products, more traffic, flash sales, etc. Let’s consider how each platform fares and what it means for your project’s scalability:
MedusaJS (Node/Express, REST):
Medusa’s lightweight nature can be an advantage for performance. With a lean Express.js core and no GraphQL parsing overhead, each request can be handled relatively fast and with low memory usage.
Node.js can handle a high number of concurrent requests efficiently (non-blocking I/O), so Medusa can serve quite a lot of traffic on a single server. If more power is needed, you can run multiple instances behind a load balancer.
Also, because Medusa can be containerized easily (they provide a Docker deployment guide), scaling horizontally in the cloud is straightforward. For database scaling, you rely on whatever your SQL DB (Postgres, etc.) can do; typically vertical scaling or read replicas if needed.
Medusa being stateless fits cloud scaling well. For small-to-medium businesses, Medusa’s performance is more than enough, and even larger businesses can scale it out.
Saleor (Python/Django, GraphQL):
Saleor is built on Django, which is a robust framework used in many high-scale sites. Performance-wise, GraphQL adds some overhead per request (parsing queries, resolving fields). However, GraphQL also can reduce the number of requests the client needs to make (one query vs multiple REST calls).
Saleor’s architecture can be scaled vertically (powerful servers) or horizontally by running multiple app instances behind a gateway. Because it uses Django, it typically will use more memory per process than a Node process, and handling extremely high concurrency might require more instances.
That said, Saleor has been shown to handle enterprise loads when properly configured (using caching for queries, etc.). Saleor’s advantage is that if you use their cloud or a similar setup, they already incorporate scalability best practices (like auto-scaling on high traffic).
For a new store, Saleor will likely run just fine on modest infrastructure (it’s easy to start with say a $20/mo Heroku dyno or similar), but as you grow, the resource usage might grow faster compared to a Node solution.
Vendure (Node/NestJS, GraphQL):
Vendure, using NestJS and GraphQL, has a performance profile somewhere between Medusa and Saleor. Node.js is generally very performant with I/O, and NestJS adds a bit of overhead due to its structure but also helps by providing tools like a built-in GraphQL engine (Apollo Server).
Vendure can use Node’s ability to handle concurrent connections much better. The use of GraphQL means each request might do more work on the server to assemble the response, but Vendure’s team likely optimized common queries.
Vendure also has the concept of a Worker process for heavy tasks, which means if you have computationally intensive jobs (e.g., rebuilding a search index, sending bulk emails), those can be offloaded, keeping the main API responsive.
Vendure being TypeScript means you can catch performance issues at compile time (to an extent) and ensure you’re using proper types for big data operations.
Handling Growth:
If you anticipate massive scale (millions of users, hundreds of thousands of orders, etc.), Saleor’s approach might be appealing due to its enterprise orientation and cloud offering. However, it doesn’t mean Medusa or Vendure can’t handle it, they absolutely can if engineered well. In fact, the lack of heavy abstractions in Medusa could be a benefit when fine-tuning for performance.
For fast-growing DTC brands (think going from 100 orders/day to 1000+ orders/day after a few influencer hits), Medusa and Vendure provide a lot of agility. Medusa’s focus on being “lightweight, flexible architecture, ideal for speed and adaptability” makes it a strong choice for those who need to iterate quickly. You can optimize or add capabilities as needed without waiting on vendor roadmaps.
Saleor is more like a high-performance sports car; it’s equipped for high speed, but you need a skilled driver (developers who know GraphQL/Python well) to push it to its limits and maintain it.
All three can be customized heavily. If you foresee the need to implement highly unique business logic or integrate unusual systems, consider how you’d do it on each:
With Medusa, you may likely write a plugin in Node or directly modify the server code (since it’s simple JS/Express). Great for quickly adding something like “I want to apply a custom discount rule for VIP customers; just drop in some JS in the right place.”
With Saleor, consider whether it can be done with an App (external service using the API) or needs an internal plugin. If internal, you need Python dev skills and understanding of Saleor’s internals. If external, you need to be comfortable with GraphQL and possibly running an additional service.
With Vendure, write a plugin in TypeScript. If you like structured code and strongly typed schemas, this is very satisfying. If not, it might feel like an extra ceremony.
A Few Final Words
MedusaJS, Saleor, and Vendure all tick the “headless, open-source, flexible” boxes but each wins in different places.
MedusaJS shines for lean, fast-moving teams that want to hack, extend, and own their stack.
Saleor is best when you need enterprise-grade stability, global readiness, and a GraphQL-first mindset.
Vendure appeals to TypeScript-heavy teams that want strong typing, modular plugins, and deep architectural control.
Your right choice depends less on which is “objectively best” and more on which aligns with your team’s skills, your growth plans, and the trade-offs you’re willing to make. In the end, the winner is the one that fits your context.