Positive

My name is Sujin Tommy, and I was a web developer at TCS. I left TCS in January 2026 and am now looking for opportunities in the United Kingdom. My experience comes under Drupal CMS, and we were using Acquia for our back-end cloud technology. We used Acquia-supported front-end components such as Site Studio for our front-end built-in components. We built sites for a pharmaceutical company called Bayer Germany.

I worked for five years at TCS, and during that entire period, I worked under the same project for the pharma company. We managed their product sites, which totaled around 800 sites built in Drupal CMS. We used JS frameworks such as React and some decoupled architecture components in the front-end to overcome the limitations of Acquia-provided Site Studio components.

I used Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) throughout my entire experience. When I joined the company, I learned that Acquia was a cloud tool. We were able to log into Acquia cloud and see the back-end in a UI manner. We could delete, clone, and perform cache clearing through a simple interface, which was very beneficial. For the front-end, we used Acquia-supported Site Studio components, which were drag-and-drop components that we could easily use to build our web pages, such as image components, header components, and paragraph components. Building pages using Site Studio components was very easy, and using Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) for our website and project was really great. It reduced our effort significantly.

We used Site Studio components as our main use case. We used Site Studio components for creating pages. They were reusable components that we could use for creating pages easily.

We faced some issues with Site Studio components, such as loading time and performance issues. We solved these issues using some Drupal fixes, and it worked well afterward. The main thing about Site Studio was its compatibility with Drupal. The overall functionality and user experience with Site Studio components was great, and it was really very compatible.

I have only used the Site Studio component product of Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP). I know Acquia has other digital experience products, but I am only familiar with Site Studio.

The main advantages include usability and the ability to make changes and create custom components. Acquia provides elements that allow us to create custom components to meet our needs, and the customization is also a positive aspect of Site Studio components.

It helps a lot because managing 800 to 1,000 sites is not an easy task, and Acquia products always help us to manage those effectively.

Considering the back-end with Acquia cloud that we used, it was very scalable and we were able to run our 800 sites smoothly for users. We needed quite a large server and needed to scale it for our new needs, so it was very compatible for us. Considering the front-end, the reusability saved a lot of time and effort. From the customer point of view, they could reduce the number of employees because using this feature, everybody can make pages using the drag-and-drop functionality. They do not need technical knowledge or development experience, so it was very easy for them as well.

The integration capabilities were really good and were really compatible with other features and integration tools.

I only have product knowledge about Site Studio, and the only missing thing was some kind of performance issues. We faced loading issues, performance issues, and some kind of optimization issues on some pages. Acquia may have optimizations that we have not purchased, but for our case, we faced some performance issues.

Since I do not exactly know if there are any existing solutions for the performance issues which we were not subscribed to, I am not an expert to comment on that. The only issue I faced was what I already mentioned, and the fix I can suggest is that they can improve performance. That thing might already be there, but I am not sure about that.

I used Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) for almost five years.

Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) was really stable in my experience and worked reliably most of the time.

Considering the back-end with Acquia cloud that we used, it was very scalable and we were able to run our 800 sites smoothly for users. We needed quite a large server and needed to scale it for our new needs, so it was very compatible for us.

It was easy to scale up Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) as our needs grew.

Sometimes we felt downtimes, and then we needed to log a ticket to Acquia. The Acquia support team would fix that, and they were really prompt.

As I already mentioned, customer support for Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) was really great, and the customer service was really prompt, even during downtimes.

Positive

It is very easy for beginners to get started with Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) and Site Studio.

I would rate this solution a seven on a scale of one to ten. The things I have already told substantiate this score.

It was a private cloud, and you have to have login credentials to log into Acquia cloud.

It was really helpful, and it was really easy to access from Acquia documentation.

It was really great in terms of user interface and overall user experience of Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP); it was easy and intuitive to use.

It met all our needs, and the customization feature was really helpful, even for beginners.

Since I do not know the exact figures, I cannot provide a detailed answer because I was only a developer.

I cannot share any particular exact values, but I can only share around data because it obviously saves time, reduces costs for customers, and also fewer employees are needed to complete all tasks.

I have not used any security features of Acquia because we were using Drupal, and Drupal has its own security features, so we did not use any security features of Acquia.

My main use case for Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) is enterprise web services to support multiple countries, including UK, France, Germany, and the USA.

A specific example of how I'm using Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) for these enterprise web services is that the goal was to migrate from a ccTLD model to a gTLD model to support multiple countries where previously there was only one website. In addition to that, it was also to embed a PIM and a DAM, which we also did.

The best features Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) offers in my experience were the synergy with the PIM and the DAM that appealed. The integration there was the main thing for me. Again, from my point of view, I was more about strategy as opposed to implementation.

The integration between the PIM and DAM worked for my organization by creating an ecosystem where you plug the data into the PIM and it's syndicated across Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP). It was almost having one entry populate the various repositories that makes a global approach simple.

Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) has positively impacted my organization by improving speed to market. Opening up a new country allowed us to put the content together very rapidly.

The speed to market improved significantly in that it would have taken a good three months to get going previously. With Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP), I would say that was reduced down to six to eight weeks.

One area where Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) can be improved is the cost structure, as it's quite an expensive solution for what it is.

In my experience, Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) is stable.

Overall, customer support with Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) was positive; we received rapid responses to queries and account management support as well.

I would rate the customer support on a scale of one to ten as a nine.

Positive

Before Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP), I previously used a very simple WordPress solution, and I needed something more dynamic and enterprise-based.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was pretty seamless. It was all clear, it was very transparent, and we signed up to a three-year deal.

Before choosing Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP), we did evaluate other options, including Optimizely.

Regarding my main use case with Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP), the only issue around migration was a technical error which was admitted, and that was the SSL certificates weren't managed effectively, so some of the sites weren't live and they couldn't migrate with ease. They weren't a seamless transition, but it was quickly detected.

My advice to others looking into using Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) is that if you want something that has a simple, seamless, feature-rich solution, Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) would be it. I actually delegated the decision making to my team and that was their decision.

Neutral

The usual use case is for the customer to have a centralized way to manage their websites. We manage multiple websites, sometimes with different types, plus some customers also have products they want to showcase. We manage these websites using Acquia DXP.

Acquia DXP offers the tools to make it easier to maintain, manage, and deploy websites in a centralized way for multiple channels.

The features of DXP that are most valuable include Acquia Site Factory, which allows for the management and creation of websites, offering a UI for managing the process of creating and deploying the websites. Additionally, Content Hub provides a centralized way to manage content.

There are areas where Acquia DXP could be improved. For example, in Site Factory, the provisioning of environments can take time. You often need more environments than what's available by default, which requires going through support and sales processes. Having more stacks available by default would be beneficial. With Content Hub, there are issues with certain types of design and content incorporation, so more flexibility is needed.

We have been using DXP from 2020 to 2024.

There are not many issues, and Acquia uses a mailing list to communicate when there are problems. They also provide a status page to check the availability of solutions. They communicate about platform maintenance, and typically there is no action needed on our side.

Acquia DXP has high scalability because it is built on AWS. It allows you to scale the solution according to your needs. You can configure some aspects yourself on the cloud platform, and for specific needs, you might need to go through support.

The support is normal, offering standard SLAs. When creating critical issues, a follow-up is needed on your side. Sometimes there are difficulties when dealing with critical issues due to the lack of a 24/7 available team. However, they are responsive and provide guidance.

Neutral

The initial setup is not the easiest stack to set up initially. That said, it is well documented. For an experienced developer, the setup would be relatively straightforward and rated as a nine.

For anyone evaluating this solution, it's important to have senior developers and senior people working with it, as junior developers may struggle with the setup. Having the right people on board is essential for enterprise projects. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Positive

We primarily use the Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP) to develop sites and apps in the financial customer and retail sectors. We also work with big brand sites. We use the platform to build websites, mobile applications, solutions for digital asset management, and marketing campaigns.

The main advantage of using Acquia’s platform is the opportunity to work with a recognized firm, which gives us extensive commercial and marketing support. 

However, there have been some structural issues within our organization that have led to changes and restructuring, which impacted our use of certain tools within the platform.

One of the most valuable aspects is working with a recognized firm, which sometimes surpasses the commercial and marketing requirements for big customers. 

Additionally, they offer useful digital asset management features and personalization tools, although there have been compatibility issues.

One area for improvement is how Acquia sizes its platform for customers, which can be ambiguous and often results in penalties after doing business. 

Issues with defining site requests and visits are not standard in the market. They also need to improve their support and technical advisory services. The manuals provided lacked clear and complete information.

We have been using the solution since 2017.

In three years, there was only one incident involving downtime of about forty-five minutes with a Bank, which was quickly resolved. Otherwise, the stability was quite commendable.

Scalability is a challenging aspect due to some mysterious elements in the platform’s design. Minimizing issues was sometimes encouraged, which was not ideal. Scaling might mean increasing capacity or decreasing it, and this last, is the complex part. 

They are usually okay, and depending on the complexity of the ticket, we can reach good experts who are far from the CX knowledge base. However, once we had customer support service in Latin America, we faced unprofessional attitudes as tech advisors. Despite participating in advisory meetings, the experience with this particular was less supportive than expected.

Neutral

We had previously been developing on Drupal CMS before switching to Acquia Digital Experience Platform (DXP).

Our first steps in 2017 were complex since we subscribed to an ambitious and complete DXP project with several modules for a mature customer. Now, we are very familiar with most of the platforms, and we have updated the Acquia methodology with our Agile way of work and always suggest approaching step by step your paint points while the customer adopts the expertise needed for the next step. 

We have implemented Acquia first for ourselves and then as a service to several customers—more than 7 customers with more than 45 sites, directories, apps, and digital signings. 

On highly demanding traffic sites of large organizations with several digital channels, different brands, or assets that need to be healthy governance by efficient teams concerned with what they publish, the quality of the information, and the performance of their digital products, the ROI is over 40%/Y or hight when you quantify the easy and quick to go life with any modification. 

The pricing is considered expensive compared to other vendors, but you have to make your own TCO calculations to understand its value. The service model is based on the demand, the level of SLA needed, and the other services the customers need to build and program for any digital products. Sometimes, the Platform Sellers want to quote you everything you possibly need, and we advise you to ramp up as you need the subscription as a preferred strategy to avoid wasting costs on features that your customers are not prepared to use. 

Yes, as part of the company process, we are always looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the market offer to advise our customers and develop skills around them. I have been involved in integrating and developing Oracle's Colud application for Digital Experience and Customer Experience, Adobe AEM and the Marketing Suits, and several others for several years. Technology is becoming a commodity per-ce in its features and capabilities, especially if it is a SAAS or PAAS solution, a trend in the last few years. So, the main difference is how they compile for the market you are in and how well their value satisfies your customers' needs. 

I would recommend the product, as it fits well with specific dimensions and needs, depending on the customer and company's needs. However, it might be challenging for others with strong Microsoft, Google or similar product affiliations.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten, more for the company policy and unclear partnership with the integrators than for the technical aspects of the solution, which is higher than 7.