What is a composable DXP?
Composable DXP is often presented as a modular digital platform enabling companies to select and assemble different specialized solutions to create a tailor-made suite. Powered by APIs and microservices, it promises total flexibility by integrating tools from a variety of suppliers, according to the specific needs of each organization.
In theory, this approach sounds ideal: instead of being locked into a monolithic system, each company can compose its digital ecosystem by choosing the solutions that suit it best. But in practice, this vision is often more marketing than reality.
The advantages of composable DXP
Composable DXPs offer a number of advantages for companies looking for a more flexible, scalable approach to managing the digital experience. Thanks to their modular architecture, they allow you to choose the best tools for each need, rather than relying on a single, fixed solution. This flexibility is supposed to facilitate integration with solutions already in place, and offer continuous scalability, essential for adapting to market changes and new user expectations.
Based on an API-first design and microservices, a composable DXP favors interoperability between its different bricks, enabling advanced customization and greater responsiveness when adding or updating functionalities. This model is particularly relevant for companies with complex needs, notably in the e-commerce sector, where the integration of specialized content management, personalization and data analysis tools is a strategic lever.
The limits of composable DXP
The term “composable DXP” is first and foremost a marketing concept used to designate modular platforms whose integration and interoperability vary from one solution to another. Behind this moniker, some offerings group together several independent tools that often require significant orchestration efforts. While this flexibility can be an asset, it can also complicate management and harm the user experience if consistency between modules is not optimal. It is therefore essential to assess the real capacity of a DXP to function smoothly and evolve before adopting it.
A complex user experience for marketing teams
The biggest problem with composable DXPs is that, as they integrate with different services/applications which generally all have their own back-end user interface, users of these systems will have to learn and manage all these different interfaces, which can lead to frustration and high learning times. What's more, in the most complicated cases, it may be necessary to redevelop a back-end user interface in order to offer a better user experience, which may involve high costs that may not even be reusable, depending on how well they are adapted to the customer.
High costs
Moving away from the idea of “one platform to rule them all” can lead to very high integration costs. Specifically, how much will the application(s) you're integrating cost? As each application is different, do you need separate development teams, specialized in integrating and managing the application? And will these integrations be reused or different for each customer?
Reliability and performance
When you divide a platform into several elements, i.e. a base platform and extensions created via separate applications, you have an increased risk of failures in each individual application, risks linked to network latency between the different layers of the composable DXP. When an error occurs it is then very difficult to know where it occurred, as there is not necessarily aggregate error management for all applications and constant analysis of network latency to isolate bottlenecks. This also creates performance bottlenecks if applications are dependent on each other, which can stall the whole DXP solution.
Governance complexity
With separate, almost distinct applications, the complexity of your governance can only increase. Whether it's SLA monitoring, contact with support, development methods, upgrades or teams specializing in specific parts of the platform, there's a lot to manage. A solid governance plan is needed, with a governance committee made up of key stakeholders and product owners.
Composable ≠ Headless
A Digital Experience Platform (DXP) is a CMS extension that enables companies to create and manage websites, portals, applications and other digital interfaces while optimizing the user experience. Unlike a traditional CMS, which is limited to content management and distribution, a DXP integrates advanced functionalities such as personalization, service aggregation and interconnection with other marketing and technological tools.
By collecting and analyzing data, a DXP adapts content according to each user's profile and behavior. For example, on a corporate intranet, if an employee often consults resources on a specific project or department, the DXP can suggest documents, training or news related to his or her field, without the need to search for them.
Rather than displaying the same interface to everyone, DXP personalizes the experience to make each interaction more fluid and relevant, facilitating access to information and improving user engagement.
Greater dependence on integrators
In fact, a “composable” architecture is not necessarily based on a headless model. A traditional CMS can integrate perfectly with other components via connectors or APIs. Conversely, a headless CMS can sometimes present integration limits, depending on its design. Thus, “composability” resides less in the architecture itself than in orchestration capacity and interoperability between tools.
Suite-type solutions (such as those offered by Sitecore, Adobe or Oracle) generally impose the use of a set of products from the same vendor, which restricts flexibility and locks users into a closed ecosystem. In contrast, full composable architectures often require significant investment to integrate third-party solutions, making the overall cost high.
Traditional DXP vs. composable DXP: a false debate?
Traditional DXPs offer an all-in-one solution with integrated CMS, customer data management (CDM), analytics and personalization tools. This approach guarantees a seamless experience for marketing and IT teams, with centralized management and simplified maintenance. However, their rigidity can limit the adaptability and integration of new technologies, locking companies into a closed ecosystem.
In contrast, composable DXPs offer greater flexibility and interoperability with a variety of tools. They enable the assembly of best-of-breed solutions, adapted to the specific needs of the company. But this modularity comes at a cost: complexity of integration, multiplication of interfaces, heavier technical management and risk of fragmentation of the user experience.
The opposition between these two models is therefore a false debate. The best approach is often based on a unified, modular DXP, combining the coherence of an integrated platform with the flexibility of an evolving ecosystem. The choice should be based on concrete criteria: integration, scalability, costs and user experience, rather than on marketing promises.
Making the right choice for a successful digital transformation
The adoption of a scalable, high-performance DXP is a key element for companies wishing to offer differentiating user experiences. It's essential to choose a platform that combines agility, interoperability and customization, without burdening the management of existing systems.
Some solutions already offer an integrated, modular approach, combining the benefits of a unified DXP with the advantages of a composable architecture. This strategy makes it possible to evolve rapidly without unnecessarily complicating the digital infrastructure.
Investing in a comprehensive, flexible DXP not only guarantees a better customer experience, but also optimizes costs and enables continuous innovation.
