What makes this WordPress pagebuilder different from all the other ones?
- What’s the UI & workflow like?
- What features does it have?
- Is it worthy of taking market share from the competition?
- What’s the pricing?
I run this recently-released Gutenberg sitebuilder through my gauntlet of skepticism.
Who is Cwicly?
Their CEO is Louis-Alexander Désiré.
I tried to do some research and couldn’t find him anywhere. No public history in WordPress commercial development or any WordPress development. No company page in LinkedIn. I don’t know who he is or what he’s done. I also don’t know anybody who knows who he is. (I also never heard of any of the team members either.)
Not to worry, that could be a really cool thing. A new mind, with a new perspective, uninfected by common crowd-think.
What is Cwicly?
Cwicly is an enhanced Gutenberg-based pagebuilder.
It’s built upon and works alongside the native WordPress Gutenberg editor. But it’s more than just a collection of Gutenberg blocks.
- It can take over template theming (with a more mature version of WordPress full-site editing).
- Import layout designs.
- Has its own settings panels and other helpful editing tools to improve upon the editing experience.
It relies heavily on the existing WordPress Gutenberg editing interface, and then adds it’s own UI panels and settings areas around that.
Basically…adding more features to your existing Gutenberg editor to make for a more friendly, and more powerful Gutenberg editing experience. I thought their slogan “The Ultimate WordPress Gutenberg Toolkit” was exactly perfect for what it does.
What’s Cwicly’s promise?
A fuller, free-er WordPress site building and Gutenberg experience. Go through their website copy and there’s lots of talk about how it enhances your native WordPress editing instead of adding more interfaces and needlessly duplicating existing functions. Design faster and free-er, with powerful tools for advanced devs while still being client-friendly to use. All while outputting cleaner code, faster page-loading, and higher page scores.
Alright alright! You got my curiosity! I clicked the [TRY FOR FREE] button before washing the melted ice cream off my hands.
User interface (UI)
The UI needs work.
- The official demos and other reviewers’ videos look better (with the dark mode), but my sandbox demo was ugly IMO.
- Default editor content looks too unstyled. Couldn’t they have picked a better default font…like maybe a sans-serif system font?
- Too many panel areas, each with their own design scheme and font styling. Left edge (icons only), left panel (block selector), right panel (block settings), and top toolbar. Feels like a mess, rather than a cohesive editing experience.
- I appreciate them trying to minimize the settings panels but I feel like things require too many clicks. Over-reliance on image icons instead of text labels of what things do. I was often hovering my mouse around to discover or remind myself of what buttons did. We must remember the goal is speed. Saving space doesn’t help if it doesn’t save time! I’d rather spend more time scrolling and less time hovering to read/remember what each icon does. Labels also train my subconscious to know where to find other things in the future.
- Messy display of borders between elements. Sometimes hard to understand/see what or where elements are.
- Why are element ID’s and classes at the top of the element primary settings panel? Why couldn’t they be at the bottom or better yet, just stick them in the “advanced” tab. I probably would have stuck the conditions and interactions settings into the advanced tab as well and put the hyperlink down elsewhere. Aghhh…I’m not sure, anyway I shouldn’t be judging based on my own bias.
- I do think the hovering “+” signs for adding new elements are cool in how you can quickly choose whether the added element goes inside, above, or after.
- How the heck do I activate dark mode for the editor? Looked all over and couldn’t find. Searched the documentation and couldn’t find.
Overall, Cwicly wasn’t so intuitive for me, and will be even less intuitive for a newbie user. I only understood it because I had the experience to “guess” where things would be. Spend a little more time and everything makes sense. But it doesn’t feel smooth and simple. Their layout doesn’t actually teach you how it works. They’ve managed to make Gutenberg feel more complicated (not a good thing). I wish they would have stuck to more a familiar Gutenberg editing layout…and then simply added upon that.
Believe me, I appreciate their approach of making it a very visual tool. The thin left-most panel reminds me of the Adobe Photoshop toolbar. Same goes for the block settings panels. It’s nice to look at but requires so much mental spend to find each click. Maybe a balance could be found. (And maybe we just have clashing layout logic. Perhaps there’s an army of users who will love and intuitively understand what Cwicly did.)
User experience (UX)
Does Cwicly actually improve your Gutenberg experience?
This should be the very first question if your product is labelled as a “Gutenberg enhancer”. And I’m seriously still deciding if Cwicly is actually any better than the default Gutenberg editing experience.
- Some of you might go “Oooooh, my Gutenberg looks sexier!”
- Others might go “Ewwww, what happened to my Gutenberg?!”
It was more of the latter for me. Like it added more features (that I probably won’t need), while hiding or moving around the basic common options that I did use often. It looked like someone installed a WP admin theme over my Gutenberg editor and then some CSS files didn’t load.
Users with more polarized opinions of Gutenberg may find it disappointing on both ends.
- For users who LOVE Gutenberg – Cwicly clutters it up without really adding more essential features. It even somewhat forces you away from the familiar Gutenberg way of doing things.
- For users who HATE Gutenberg – Cwicly still reminds too much of Gutenberg’s editing interface. Feels like lipstick on a pig.
So basically…it’s ironically/strangely worse from both ends. People who hate Gutenberg will hate Cwicly even more. People who love Gutenberg may or may not like Cwicly’s opinionated version of Gutenberg.
One thing is for sure, Cwicly doesn’t help newbies learn (or understand) Gutenberg any faster. I think a total newbie would be more confused by Cwicly than without it.
What was fun, what was not fun?
What kills me the most was the contrasting user-experience I had between different tasks.
- Anything advanced or Cwicly-specific feature was lots of fun. Things like messing around with the themer, or dev features (dynamic fields, etc) was so easy and intuitive. I felt powerful.
- But basic Gutenberg tasks…like styling a button, was kind of annoying. Because of all the little settings panels and granular options you had to click through. It felt so tedious.
I did enjoy Cwicly’s features. I just didn’t enjoy its non-features (basic tasks). Hahaha.
Features
- Enhanced Gutenberg UI – whether you feel it actually improves your overall Gutenberg experience is subjective. I think some things are genius and other things a bit annoying. Since the UI is the feature, for a workflow tool like this.
- Blocks shortcut bar (left panel) – I freaken love this idea! Whoever came up with it, give that person a million dollar raise. I loved being able to add my most commonly used blocks. Honestly, this should be spliced into a free plugin for the WP Repo. (pretty pleeeeeease? *bambi eyes*)
- Block library – Cwicly adds their own 30+ blocks to your existing Gutenberg block library. I agree that theirs are all essential ones (as stated in their marketing copy) and no fluff. You can probably build most sites entirely using only their blocks. Should you need to use others, they’d integrate just fine.
- Style library – I have mixed feelings Cwicly’s style library. The designs seem polished enough, but the library is hard to use. Small panel and not so helpful category descriptions make it cumbersome to use. I wish it opened a bigger/wider panel in the middle of the screen and easier to scroll through options.
- Theme templating – like other sitebuilders, Cwicly can be used to design template parts, like header and footer. I really like how powerful this is!
- Speed & performance – yes…it’s fast. does it satisfy page scores? that’s for you to find out. Muck it up with tons of unnecessary blocks and see if you still score high.
- Developer features – Cwicly has several cool developer features that serious devs would really appreciate…dynamic content, filters, query, fragments, repeater, page-specific styler, etc.
- Roadmap – keep an eye on it. I see many interesting things on here…free version, WooCommerce templating, megamenu builder, raw HTML conversions, and more.
I really like Cwicly’s feature list. Maybe I disagree with Cwicly on UI and UX but their development mentality (on what features are necessary) aligns exactly with mine.
Support
Cwicly has an active community and lots of engagement between both devs and users. It’s exactly what I want to see.
- Comprehensive support documentation.
- Active (Discourse) forums.
- Roadmaps
- They offer 24/7 support, which I haven’t used.
- Facebook Group is still small. Just 1,000 but a nice tight and activity community.
Cwicly VS the competition
VS default Gutenberg & block libraries:
- Some people – might just prefer the default Gutenberg editor (look) and usual block library plugins. Simple, quick and easy.
- Other people – might prefer Cwicly’s more visual workflow, and added features. Also their way of adding more options and settings.
I guess it all depends on what you’re planning to do. And whether you want a Gutenberg experience, an enhanced Gutenberg experience, or no Gutenberg at all.
VS other Gutenberg pagebuilders:
- Stackable – I would probably prefer Stackable. Because it feels more native to Gutenberg whereas Cwicly changes the interface without really adding more features. Basically creating a learning curve without reward for learning. Both use the native WordPress FSE (full-site editing) feature to do theming and templating. Stackable has a nicer design library. I love the wireframe templates.
- GenerateBlocks – a more minimal block library, and can also be used with FSE. Pro version has more blocks, dynamic features, and also super polished design library. I’m a huge fan of GenerateBlocks. I would prefer GenerateBlocks as well. I would guess GenerateBlocks is the closest direct competitor to Cwicly. Both in terms of the overall product features, approach to problem-solving, and type of dev-users they cater to.
- KadenceBlocks – same idea as GenerateBlocks. But I think GenerateBlocks has more advanced dev-features. Kadence however does have nice template library.
- Spectra – made by the guys behind Astra. Haven’t even tried but from what I see, I would probably choose them over Cwicly as well just because I think their UI would be better.
- Qubely – it’s fallen off my list. Buggy and complaints. Also that one public post they had a while back asking for “public support” (money) did not reflect well on them.
UI wise, Cwicly’s main competition is here. With the more comprehensive block plugins that not only have Gutenberg block libraries but also have workflow enhancements, style libraries and theme-templating capabilities. I personally would prefer GenerateBlocks and Stackable. (Either or, not both simultaneously.) Probably prefer KadenceBlocks over Cwicly as well.
VS modern sitebuilders (Bricks, Breakdance, Oxygen)
- Bricks – is a theme with a powerful built-in pagebuilder. It’s a simpler but more powerful version of Oxygen. Has its own visual workflow.
- Breakdance – BD is gonna feel smoother and more intuitive, more polished, more fun. Cwicly will feel more like Gutenberg, up to the user to decide which he or she prefers.
- Oxygen – Oxygen is a very visual pagebuilder with tons of dev features and settings. Cwicly is a Gutenberg pagebuilder with a handful of dev features. Both are for devs, but Cwicly is simpler in use, features, and workflow.
- Brizy – I haven’t used Brizy much but I feel I would generally choose Brizy over Cwicly. Up to your preference.
Clean code output and performance just like the others. But the others have their own editing interface…their own custom editor (if you will). The Cwicly interface isn’t as smooth, cohesive, or unique (of course). Definitely not comparable in workflow features. Can build similar things but honestly not even a fair comparison. Cwicly isn’t trying to be a whole new pagebuilder, it’s just adding to your existing Gutenberg experience. Features wise, these tools are a better comparison against Cwicly.
There is one big advantage Cwicly has over modern sitebuilders…it’s that it has its own UI just like them but still allows you to mix in Gutenberg blocks from other 3rd-party plugins. This is huge as Bricks and Breakdance don’t seem to allow that.
VS oldschool bloated pagebuilders (Elementor, DIVI, etc)
- Cwicly outputs cleaner and faster code, but the building experience is different and much less (noob) user-friendly IMO.
- People who like traditional pagebuilders probably belong more on Breakdance or Stackable.
These are the people not tech-savvy enough to use Gutenberg or even understand what it is (a block library, a pagebuilder, a design-tool ecosystem?). They want (or need) an all-in-one plugin that has every possible tool for them. While Cwicly might be this for dev-users, it won’t be for average users.
Improvement suggestions for Cwicly
Basically, all the things I’ve already said before:
- Clean up the UI. Like a lot. The easiest suggestion would be to put things back to be closer to the native Gutenberg UI, and then add cleverly on top of that. The harder suggestion is keep what you have but redesign it so sexy that I like your way better.
- Redo that style library. Make it open a big panel in the middle so I can scroll through designs easier. Maybe more helpful descriptions.
- More icons on the shortcut bar. Maybe you decrease space-margin between them if we add more icons? I can think of 12-15 blocks I’d love to use regularly.
Would I recommend Cwicly?
Personally, I wouldn’t use (or recommend) Cwicly even if it was free.
- I can’t recommend it to beginners because it seems more complicated than even default Gutenberg. Too much reliance on image icons instead of text labels prevents them from learning technical terminology faster.
- I wouldn’t recommend Cwicly to devs since there are better dev tools on the market. Bricks, Oxygen, Breakdance.
- I wouldn’t recommend Cwicly to diehard Gutenberg users because they can already do similar things with other Gutenberg pagebuilders that have a better UI. Stackable, GenerateBlocks, Spectra come to mind.
Cwicly is a good idea conceptually, but not matured (design-wise) yet and also doesn’t compare favorably against existing competitors. Other pagebuilders (Gutenberg & non-Gutenberg) offer a cleaner interface, more features, and were more fun to use.
But give Cwicly some time to mature and its use cases will expand massively. I appreciate its qualities more with time!
What users and use-cases best fit Cwicly?
At first glance, Cwicly seems a poor fit for everyone. Offering a mix of features that don’t fully satisfy any specific type of user. But in looking deeper, I’d have to say Cwicly does perfectly suit a particular hybrid-workflow type of dev.
- Likes Gutenberg and Gutenberg editor. Finds it’s simple and fast.
- Needs theme-templating capabilities.
- Wants advanced developer features.
- Needs something more powerful (but less cluttersome) than a block library.
- Needs to do theme templating, but not take so much time.
- Doesn’t want something as non-native or complex as Bricks or Oxygen, and/or just wanted something more familiar for clients (already familiar with Gutenberg).
- Last but not least…someone who likes the Cwicly UI design. (Just because I didn’t doesn’t mean someone else won’t.) Also that Cwicly is the only Gutenberg pagebuilder with its own UI and still allows you add blocks from other 3rd-party plugins.
These traits are very specific but I do believe this type of “advanced/hybrid Gutenberg developer” exists. If this is you, you’ll absolutely love Cwicly.
Simplicity & power (power & simplicity) is a hard balance to find. But I do believe Cwicly visualized it well (from a developer POV). The vision is there. I just hope the UI design and overall UX matures to see it better.
Cwicly’s unique features are:
- Its customizations on the Gutenberg editor. I actually do like that Cwicly IS Gutenberg. So you can use it alongside many other Gutenberg plugins.
- Cool shortcut toolbar on the left – genius!
- Some designs and settings nuances on their added Gutenberg blocks – see if you like it.
- Gutenberg themer – using WordPress FSE feature to design templates with Gutenberg blocks.
- And some nice developer features – check them out to see if you need them. I haven’t compared side-by-side with every competitor to know what Cwicly has and doesn’t have.
…basically, Cwicly is already quite similar to several other Gutenberg pagebuilder plugins on the market. And probably the main thing that stands out is its UI.
Cwicly is a cool way for devs to build theme templates and content with Gutenberg blocks. While benefitting from workflow enhancements and powerful dev features, all within the familiar Gutenberg editor.
Is all this enough to justify a paid cost? ($49/year for 3 sites, $99 for 10 sites, $199 for 1,000 sites.)
- For me…no. I think others are cheaper and better (or more mature), like GenerateBlocks. They do however have a free version on the way, and that would be interesting.
- But maybe you’ll have a different experience from me. Maybe you’ll like their UI.
The best part of all is Cwicly’s trial is so easy. Just one click of the button and a demo site is fired up and ready for you to play within 2 minutes. Check out the UI theme-building and advanced features, and you’ll know if it’s for you.
Would you recommend Kadence Blocks over Cwicly?
Excellent article 🙂
For the average person, definitely KB. For people wanting more advanced dev stuff, I recommend checking Cwicly’s feature-list first. But overall KadenceBlocks UI is more mature and it also has a nice style library. But again…it’s not an exact comparison since Cwicly’s UI is different. Maybe some people prefer that. Try and see!
Before you write a review, first create atleast one or two sites with Cwicly.
Your comment is the right answer. It took me some time to learn Cwicly just like it took me time to learn Oxygen, and now Bricks. Once I learned Cwicly I realized how powerful it was and I moved around it with ease.
As a developer I love Cwicly’s approach to Gutenberg. I am incline to migrate from Bricks to Cwicly because Gutenberg is WordPress default and is not going anywhere. One thing this article got right is the slogan part. Cwicly is the “The ultimate gutenberg toolkit”.
For anybody else reading this, you would do them a great service listing what you thought Cwicly did right that other tools didn’t.
Because right off the bat, it didn’t compare favorably for me (for routine tasks) even though I recognized it does have nice features for devs.
Becsuse you think that somehow improves my comments about its UI? I’ve already tried to do the same tasks that I would do with any tool.
May be you should change the title to my personal opinion instead of review. Just like you did in case of Pinegrow where you also wrote a review but without testing it and then claimed it to be an opinion when some body called you out in the comments. The url still says review. lol https://wpjohnny.com/pinegrow-review-for-wordpress/
Why write reviews without even building one or two sites with a builder? Or change the reviews to Johnny opinions. Very poor quality!
I’ll leave the word review because that’s what it was. I tried it out for a couple hours actually and that’s what I thought of it. It goes without saying that everything I write is personal opinion.
Couple of hours? lol! Why write these half assed reviews? Just to drive views? At least spend some time before writing a review.
I write these reviews because people keep asking for my opinion. If I like something, I’ll spend more time. In this case, the tool isn’t a good fit for the majority of users…and even for dev-users, I would personally recommend other tools. It doesn’t take me a long time to see why I might or might not like something. I’ve already iterated numerous times why.
The only thing half-assed here is your comment actually. If you’re going to disagree, you need to explain why and what parts of my statements you disagreed with it. Go on now…read carefully what I said and see if you can try a less half-assed comment next time. Right now, it just looks like you’re mad somebody else disagreed with your opinion.
Simple, I am not agree and everyone here knows that cwicly has a knowledge curve but I think that is the most powerful tool there are in the market. For example bricks grid display, filters or interactions its new and buggy, cwicly grid, filters, query builder or interactions are maturer and more powerful.
Maybe the UI could be cleaner especially if you work in smaller screens but cwicly is a great tool if you understand gutenberg
So what’s the problem here? My review says what you said…that the UI needs work but I appreciate the dev features. However I don’t think most users need those dev features and therefore might be better suited to something with a better UI.
I do in fact understand and love Gutenberg but sorry (not sorry), this tool wasn’t in my preference among its competitors (Bricks, GenerateBlocks, etc).
I’ve stated numerous times that even though I might not like its layout and workflow, somebody else might. If that’s you, great. Again…are you just mad because somebody else didn’t agree with your way of building sites?
Sorry Johnny, this can’t be called a “review”. Cwicly is the most powerful Gutenberg builder out there and it looks like you played with it for a couple of hours barely. At least build a few real websites for clients, solving real challenges and then you will be eligible to review it properly and state your arguments. You completely overshadowed what the tool is capable of, failing to show even one advanced thing it can do compared to anything else out there in Gutenberg, but that is obvious because it’s your first glance at it, not a proper review.
This article just misleads and unfortunately hurts an amazing product because your website is a popular one in WordPress ecosystem. It also ruins your reputation as a credible reviewer of tools.
Thus, I suggest you change the article to “First glance at Cwicly – WordPress Gutenberg pagebuilder”.
I tested for average use cases, and within those “average cases”, Cwicly’s UI was subpar for me. I already mentioned its dev features and potential use for devs in the review. What I hammered mostly was the UI.
I really don’t worry about my reputation. I’m not here to make affiliate revenue or anything like that. Fans ask me to review things and I do my best to give fast opinions. Could really care less if you think my opinions are crap.
Thoughtful review, nice job. The reason for the ID and Classes up front and center is because that’s exactly where they belong in a Dev friendly app. Some people, me included, love slapping classes on everything, LOL.
But how often do you need to see the class once you’ve already seen/renamed it once? Like would you really prefer it in that space over other block settings? I guess yes, since you said so. Hahaha.
Don’t put words in my mouth, Johnny, LOL.
You can’t apply my comment from a previous observation to your newer, clarified TOS. Why yes, I think you make a good point. Why can’t it sort of hide itself intelligently after it’s been assigned or something. I think you’re on to something. Now, I see that you’ve recently released a video covering Greenshift, so off I go. Somebody’s got to do these tutorials for these guys, they’re not too great at making them themselves, LOL.
This review is incredibly misleading and unfair to our beloved WordPress community.
In a nutshell, I hope that Johnny, as a role model in the WordPress community, refrains from publishing such blatantly biased reviews in the future. It’s disheartening to see Johnny begin by dismissing the Cwicly family as “no-one” or unknown while failing to provide similar information about Spectra and even WPMU DEV, such as their number of employees and business details. Many of these companies may only appear superficially impressive but Johnny seems to focus solely on Cwicly’s shortcomings.
I strongly urge the removal of this review, and here are some of the reasons why:
1. Johnny compares BMW versus bicycle, unfairly blaming Cwicly for being too advanced without even taking it for a realistic test drive. In reality, Cwicly is one of the world’s easiest applications to use, despite its robust features, flexibility, and power. It’s akin to criticizing the price of a BMW without considering the long-term value of the investment. Moreover, Cwicly is incredibly affordable and even comes with integrated ACF Pro!
2. Johnny has overlooked numerous outstanding features of Cwicly, such as the convenient pop-up CSS editor on hover in the Navigator panel, incredible interactions for almost every element, global pseudo-rendering (hover, active…), integrated ACF Pro(!), relocating the unnecessary BIG title field to the toolbar, hassle-free installation, premium support (prompt, friendly, and useful email assistance), and so much more!
3. Having classes at the top of the tab is tremendously helpful for those utilizing utility classes and plugins like Motion.Page. Classes are essential and relevant throughout the entire development process. Even Breakdance had the wisdom to listen to common sense and reintroduced custom classes at a central location. Who is Johnny actually addressing? Certainly not real-life web developers like myself, who do work for clients, but perhaps teenagers who spend their money based on Johnny’s advice without much consideration.
4. While Spectra may appear cleaner, it lacks the same level of power, and notably, there is still no professional version available. This may suggest that their product may not yet be suitable for commercial or professional use.
5. It’s puzzling that Johnny fails to mention Greenshift, an exceptional alternative to Cwicly. Greenshift is fresh and remarkably intelligent! In my opinion, Greenshift surpasses Spectra by a wide margin, although it remains to be seen if Spectra Pro will bring more innovation and usefulness to the table.
6. Breakdance and Bricks are undoubtedly fantastic, but they couldn’t be further away from the core essence of vanilla WordPress. Johnny therefore bases his comparison on false premises. If Johnny were to compare the code volume of WP + Cwicly versus WP + Bricks + ACF + complementary plugins, he would discover that Cwicly utilizes significantly more vanilla WordPress code, resulting in a considerably smaller overall codebase. Additionally, Cwicly evolves in tandem with WordPress, avoiding any detours or dead ends.
7. Oxygen is undeniably impressive, but once again, it strays far from the essence of vanilla WordPress and offers a more complex editor, which unfortunately tends to be sluggish. Breakdance can accomplish everything Oxygen does, and in most cases, does it better, at least based on my experience developing real-life sites and marketing brands for customers.
8. Furthermore, it’s worth mentioning that Cwicly is the most advanced and versatile add-on for the vanilla WordPress editor. Comparable add-ons like Greenshift can work seamlessly alongside Cwicly, something that would be very worth mentioning in the review.
9. This review borders on a defamatory campaign against a brand, which violates marketing laws, particularly in Europe. Johnny, as a commercial entity, speaks negatively about a brand and its product without providing any substantial arguments. It’s even worse considering that Johnny is financially rewarded for this and possibly derives satisfaction from it. Such actions would undoubtedly result in Johnny losing a legal battle in any European courthouse. If I was Johnny, I would think twice before responding to any comments since his negative critique of Cwicly lacks any substance, as does his positive critique of the non-pro version of Spectra. It simply doesn’t make any sense.
10. Having said that, I wish Johnny all the best, and I hope he recognizes the humor in my serious tone. I want to clarify that I hold nothing against Johnny as an individual. My criticism is directed solely at a business model that promotes biased recommendations. While commercials are acceptable, commercialized reviews are most certainly not.
Kind regards,
Havard
23 years of experience in digital branding and development of premium brands and websites for leaders across various industries, but I am still learning 🙂
Some of your comments were logical, the others not even close whatsoever. But more than anything…I think it’s you that’s biased in here. You spoke a lot from a hurt POV trying to defend a tool which you invested your heart in. I have no bias for or against CWICLY. I reviewed it as something I knew little or cared about.
With that said, I think CWICLY does have some nice features and its approach is unique and worthwhile even if I thought its execution could use improvement/maturing-time. When you get over your own bias, I think you’ll come around to agree more with me than you think. I mean this sincerely.
Hello Johnny. Thank you for your response. First of all, I must admit that I initially mistook you for someone else. I got carried away by the effects of a new strain of sweet smoke. I’m returning now to take responsibility for my actions. Here’s a shorter and clearer version of my message, which was not originally directed towards you but has now become relevant as my comment has generated a lot of attention:
I’m not a disciple of Cwicly; instead, I represent the WP Community and aim to maintain a smear-free environment devoid of baseless propaganda campaigns such as this review.
1. Cwicly is by far the most affordable among the most advanced WordPress plugins. I challenge you to provide an example where I’m mistaken here.
2. Johnny failed to mention the incredible pop-up CSS editor on hover in the Navigator panel, offering remarkable interactions for almost every element, global pseudo-rendering (hover, active…), integrated ACF Pro, and much more.
3. Having classes in a centralized location is immensely beneficial for those utilizing utility classes, animation frameworks, and more. Criticizing the classes field indicates that Johnny lacks sufficient CSS skills (flamebait).
4. While Spectra may appear cleaner, it lacks the same level of power and functionality. Notably, there is still no professional version available, only a free trial version of the pro, something that is a very disappointing coming from Brainstorm Force – too late.
5. It’s puzzling that Johnny fails to mention GreenShift, an exceptional alternative to Cwicly, which provides even faster page loading than Astra, Blocksy, Breakdance, and Oxygen! And has tons of smart block innovation such as animation container, and links on parent elements, and relative styling with absolute positioning (missing in ALL other WP builders).
6. Breakdance and Bricks are undoubtedly fantastic, but they deviate significantly from the core essence of vanilla WordPress. Let’s discuss Breakdance (my all-time favorite builder — yes, I’m a hardcore fanboy of Louis Reingold, and I’ve never looked back at Oxygen). Here’s how Breakdance diverges from the normal WordPress world:
6.1 Proprietary Library pages (templates, headers, etc.): It uses an ajax button for “create new” instead of a versatile URL that users can easily relocate in custom UI.
6.2 Proprietary Library pages: Not compatible with WP dark styling or any custom admin themes.
6.3 Proprietary Blocks: They are not compatible with WP and lack the Gutenberg translation functionality they implemented for Oxygen but abandoned for Breakdance. I’m referring to the ability to edit pages in BOTH the WP Block Editor and Breakdance editor.
6.4 Proprietary Global Styling: It is not compatible with WP Patterns or WP Styles, thus missing out on features like dark mode, accessibility, and design communities.
6.5 Proprietary UI: The only missing aspect for Breakdance to become an experience almost entirely isolated from WP is the ability to create pages and templates inside the Breakdance editor.
7. Oxygen is undeniably impressive but somewhat messy!
8. Furthermore, it’s worth mentioning that Cwicly can be used alongside most of the alternatives mentioned here. Yet, you say, “don’t use Cwicly at all” without explaining why.
9. Europe has the best legal system in terms of privacy and protecting business markets from American smear and propaganda. To clarify, if this review were about the Volkswagen car brand, Johnny would have to justify to a judge why he uses his public channel to publish baseless accusations that cause financial harm to Volkswagen. Norway faced huge consequences in the European court for speaking negatively about Red Bull when they didn’t want to carry it due to its alleged health risks.
10. I love you, Johnny, I am not gay or on transsexual pharma, I really just appreciate you at a level that deserves the term “love” <3
10.1 I know this thread took off, and I really want you to know that I enjoy your reviews. Mostly because of your honesty and relaxed attitude.
10.2 In fact, I enjoy having your reviews on wall screen as white noise in my office. Keep up your good reviews!
10.3 Perhaps 5% of my message is correct in mainstream dimension, and perhaps it will make your stuff even better in the future.
10.4 I really don’t wanna promote use of ganja, but I have used it for 23 years, and have more days with THC than without in my whole life (42 year). I love smoking and watching your reviews. Medicine! I promise that I will maintain self-control in your comment sections.
10.5 Peace and love and happy WP!
Kind Regards,
Havard
Dude, you’re way too invested in this. And many of your points are off.
1. I don’t care for the price if I wouldn’t use it even if it were free.
2. I didn’t list every feature. I don’t have to when the UI already turned me off.
3. Nah dude. I don’t think it’s necessary to have it there. At this point, I’m wondering if you even understood my review.
4. I’m not comparing Spectra to this. Apples to oranges.
5. I’m not gonna mention every competitor on a review focused on CWICLY. You’re grasping as straws here.
6. Ummm….yes, we all know that.
7. Ok, so you’re validating my point that not liking a UI is legit reason to not like a tool.
8. Am aware of that. And listed this as a PRO. I actually really like this about CWICLY.
9. How the heck is this a smear or propaganda? Calm down, now.
10. I love THC. Peace and love and happiness to you, too.
What I learned here is, if what was said is true, Europe is a pretty garbage place for freedom of expression. I hope the humor isn’t lost under my serious tone as well.
While I am a fan of Cwicly and don’t agree with a lot of points in the reviews, I think my views are more aligned with the people in the comment section. BUT at the same time, the comment section is just… wild.
What IS a review, but a person’s opinions and thoughts about a certain thing?
To call this “not a review”, or that it should be taken down, or that it should or could be grounds for a lawsuit (for which it would definitely lose, no less)… is just unbelievable. It is crazy.
Hello, Mr. Wilson! Thank you for your response. I hope you’re doing well. As for Dennis, he’s doing great too! He’s been keeping busy and making progress in his endeavors. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to take a look at my reply to Johnny above for my response to your comment. I appreciate your kind words and wish you a fantastic day filled with happiness. Take care and be well, my friend!
Checkmate!
A mere two-minute tryout is undeniably inadequate when it comes to crafting a comprehensive review. It’s possible that your audience may have lower expectations, similar to Drew (mentioned in the previous comment), who perceives this as a thoughtful review. However, let me clarify what constitutes a genuine review:
1. Review => re + view
2. ‘Re’ implies repetition or revisiting
3. ‘View’ refers to a diligent study or examination
4. Thoughtful implies an in-depth analysis achieved through thorough exploration
5. On the other hand, a baseless review can be likened to a smear campaign
It’s important to recognize the distinction between a cursory assessment and a genuinely thoughtful and well-researched review. With additional time and effort invested, one can provide a more thorough and insightful evaluation.
Kind Regards,
Mr. X
I think the writing is correct, and it is also correctly stated that you don’t like the written review because you are a Cwicly fan. I like the ideas about Cwicly too, I’ve played with many things in the setting, participated in the translation of Cwicly etc… But the interface is very confusing and needs a lot of tweaking. What I created in Bricks recently (a test site) took me much longer in Cwicly, and I’ve been playing with Cwicly for almost a year.. sorry, but Bricks and Kadence Pro is really better so far..
I’m right with you. Cwicly fans think I’m unfairly comparing a dev tool to non-dev tools. But I’m not. I’m simply pointing out how many other tools have a cleaner more intuitive UI. I totally get that Cwicly has more power, flexibility, and options. It’s UI just makes me not want to do even basic things with it. If other people like the UI, that’s great…I’m glad it caters to their workflow style.
It is more a greenview than a review. 😉
Yes, there is a learning curve. But your review reads like a Windows user complaining about MacOS.
My highlights are … well just a few, like the amazing filter block or the query block. That lets you do ANYTHING. Fir example a custom swatch for my woo commerce. Or details like the (visual) fonts choosing to download locally. Or the insane gradient thing. Hell, that is best in class everywhere.
Stackable or kadence limit you in so many ways or hinder you with their design choices, generate blocks is great but missing a lot. Cwicly makes Gutenberg sense. The grade of freedom to do stuff can of course overwhelm. But it is hands down the most amazing Gutenberg page builder. FSE front and back. Not to mention the ACF inside…
I think you completely misunderstand how the comparisons work. On its own, I recognized Cwicly’s unique strengths and approach. But when compared against the competition, I expected Cwicly to beat the competitors at THEIR strengths to be worthy of taking their market share. While Cwicly is a great tool in its own niche, it doesn’t outdo the others in theirs.
Well, I like the approach of Cwicly. I like they use little icons, that I recognise after very short time, like I use them with affinity or adobe apps and give me a great deal of freedom to build.
Just watch the little tutorial of building a pop-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWPvw7mcuy4 from cwicly. It is just perfect. Though you may like a more straightjacked one where for example padding is premade or the “X” is already placed and get on my nerves like in Kadence.
I think it’s awesome that you like it. Their tool is different and I’m sure there may be plenty of more visual-oriented people who like its layout. No doubt it’s a good tool with a distinct workflow style.
Your review is valid, but should be mentioned as it’s the point of view of someone who doesn’t builds websites professionally. (I don’t say you can’t, just that you don’t 🙂 )
Try build a website based on a complex design (pixel-perfect) and functionality with all the tools mentioned and see with which one you can achieve the goal faster. On top of that also try to get the same html output as if you would build it by hand (with zero divception and zero extra classes and ids) with any of the other tools.
Cwicly is the same as Webflow, but for WordPress. It’s not meant for newbies.
If you would show a newbie (or just someone who doesn’t have specific requirement for what he needs to build) Squarespace or Webflow, of course they would prefer Squarespace to build something fast.
Same for photos. If someone just want some quick edits they would probably prefer Canva vs Photoshop.
The icons part indeed is a thing to get used to. (but it’s the same thing with any professional tool) You can’t expect to be comfortable with those after one use.
There is no comparation between cwicly and any of the other tools in the blocks ecosystem, in the flexibility degree, backed in functionally and code output. (it’s even on top of oxygen or bricks)
But indeed it’s not a tool without a learning curve.
So basically…you agreed with my post. 🙂
UI icon labels take longer to read than text labels, and that this tool serves a dev market which makes it definitely not a good fit for common users (as I’ve stated in here).
Whether someone prefers Cwicly to other equivalent dev tools (Bricks or Oxygen) is a matter of taste. Even if Cwicly has more dev features than Bricks…I still prefer Bricks UI. It feels faster and more intuitive to build with for me. We’re in the realm of preference now and I stated mine. If you have a list of features you think Cwicly can do that Bricks can’t, I’d love to hear them.
Hi Johnny. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Seems like lots of users disagree with you and try to break it with words.
As a non-tech user who wants to discover more about designing a website efficiently, I think the review is valuable to me. Thanks for the efforts you put in.
Thanks for the comment. Everybody has a different workstyle and I never expect people to agree. Tools are as personal as clothes. For sure, I think Cwicly is worth a 2-min test for everyone to play with.
Checkmate! (not duplicate, you must read this one too)
A mere two-minute tryout is undeniably inadequate when it comes to crafting a comprehensive review. It’s possible that your audience may have lower expectations, similar to Vincere (mentioned in the previous comment), who perceives this as a valuble review. However, let me clarify what constitutes a genuine review:
1. Review => re + view
2. ‘Re’ implies repetition or revisiting
3. ‘View’ refers to a diligent study or examination
4. Thoughtful implies an in-depth analysis achieved through thorough exploration
5. On the other hand, a baseless review can be likened to a smear campaign
It’s important to recognize the distinction between a cursory assessment and a genuinely thoughtful and well-researched review. With additional time and effort invested, one can provide a more thorough and insightful evaluation.
Kind Regards,
Mr. X
Edit: In my previous comment, please exchange the term ‘thoughtful’ with ‘valuable’ to make it relevant for the above comment by Vincere, and we’ll get the same result as my almost similar comment on this page: an in-depth analysis achieved through thorough exploration. How can a review be valuable if there’s a total lack of thoroughness in the advisory?
Edit: In essence, the term ‘valuable’ encompasses the notion of ‘thoroughness,’ as value inherently suggests that something contributes to improving one’s life in economic terms or prosperity.
Value is perceived/determined by the reader. And believe it or not, many of my readers don’t care for a point-by-point listing of every feature and flaw. They simply want Johnny’s fast opinion and that’s it. My blog serves me, my (workflow) style, and my readers who like my style.
Everybody else…well, I can’t please you all (and I’m not even going to try).
I call it a review because it fits the definition. And am free to make it as thorough or un-thorough as is most convenient to my time.
FWIW, I’ve seen a ton of tools over the years. I know what to look for and where to look for. I didn’t need more than 2 mins to see that this UI tool does not have the best UI for my workflow style. Likewise, you shouldn’t need 2 minutes to know my review is fairly written on many points.
Instead of trying to poke holes in my fairly-written and well-explained critiques, it’s best if you just share what you liked about CWICLY. Your CWICLY defense in disguise as a critique on my review thoroughness isn’t fooling anyone.
This review appears to be written from the standpoint of casual users who may prefer editors like Breakdance or Kadence, which are simpler and contains collection of shiny pre-made blocks and templates. So i can understand this point of view.
In terms of my personal preferences and experience, Generateblocks and Cwicly are the best Gutenberg-based editors.
But Cwicly is special. It is the only page builder I found that turns Gutenberg into a true webflow-like experience. So yeah I think it has a similar audience to bricks or oxygen. (but for a dev that prefers Gutenberg).
The quality of output is also very clean with very good accessibility.
I totally agree with this take. It alters the native Gutenberg experience and STAYS native to Gutenberg. That’s pretty cool. Especially when you consider that it allows you to mix/combine with other Gutenberg tools as well.
The Cwicly mob really don’t like it when someone is in any way negative about it, do they? Reviews are built on experience and opinions made by those experiences.
But the fact of the matter is that Cwicly is incredibly verbose. The UI is just about the most unintuitive I’ve come across – I’m sure it makes perfect sense if your the person that built it, but to me the experience has been an exercise in frustration with circular interactions and peculiar behaviour. My history is with Drupal, so I’m no noob or stranger to steep learning curves. I’ll admit that I’m not a Gutenberg fan or really a fan of WordPress in general and all Cwicly has done is drive me further away from the platform.
It has underlying power, no doubt. And it was the demos and promise that made me an early adopter/purchaser of Cwicly. I’ve tried really hard to get it to work for me – but my conclusion is that I just couldn’t use it to drive a site that is being updated on a regular basis.
Until today, I thought Johnny was credibble and relevant person to go when looking an opinion or a review. Now, Johny, you are joke. I understand all your articles are pure bs.
You review stuff based on vague use or other people opinion (which are probably based on 2 seconds use on just about anything they sh** on).
This is the only article on the internet that screams ”hate” towards the product, based on ”not using” the product properly.
Vietnam is a nice country, but you suck.
Mr. Kenobi
Plenty of of people have been complaining about CWICLY. So much in fact, that they decided to abandon their own product. I’m also not from Vietnam. Anyway, please learn to read more before commenting because your researching skills suck, too. Sincerely, get lost. Your attitude isn’t welcome here.