ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Pros and Cons of Four Custom Field Plugins and Their Page Builder Support
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- There are four popular plugins that let you easily add custom fields: Advanced Custom Fields, Meta Box, Pods, and Toolset. In this video I share a summary about each of these plugins, look at page builder support for them, and share my opinions about their strengths, weaknesses and when it makes sense to use them.
The text version of the video is available on the WebTNG website:
www.webtng.com...
![[UNCUT] เพื่อไทยดันอุ๊งอิ๊งนั่งนายกฯ หลังเศรษฐาถูกถอดถอน | คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ | 15 ส.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SpprmDJ6QEE/mqdefault.jpg)
Good overview David. I went with Toolset for the simple reason it’s an all-in-one comprehensive package. I dumped the page builders and have not looked back when using it. Not to mention the speed benefit .The value is outstanding when you consider all the other competitors will require some expensive additional plugins which will likely be required. If you need additional design functionality, it pairs well with Stackable and Kadence blocks.
Thanks Gary. I'm using Toolset, together with Kadence blocks, on WebTNG.com. I 100% agree.
Toolset Views is severely underrated. Used that to make a full complex directory-style site listing quiz nights which I wouldn't have been able to do with blocks anywhere near as easily.
Yes, that is why being listed as "legacy" worries some people. All of its features are not yet available in the Blocks version.
I’m one of those longtime Toolset users concerned about their support for Views. It’s a very powerful editor that lets pseudo-developers like me get into creating my own dynamic output that I can control. However, I haven’t jumped onto the Gutenberg bandwagon as I feel it’s still a long way from where third party page builders have gotten us. Toolset’s focus on Gutenberg is premature, I think. It’ll probably bear fruit in the long run, but the interim will be harder for it.
@@DavidMcCan It is said that Toolset stopped development, is this true?
@@HaifengZhu-pn3uq - Over a year ago they said they were stopping new features, but keeping up with WP, PHP. versions, and bug fixes - which they have done. Hopefully we will hear soon about their future plans.
Pods has a repeater field option as an additional free plugin. It also now has a series of blocks that includes front end use of forms that don't require coding.
Thanks. The repeater field plugin is a third party and when I mentioned it someone told me it was problematic. A repeater field is on the roadmap next.
A very good look at the different options. Thank you!
Thank you for the positive feedback.
@@DavidMcCan, I'm a visual learner so seeing someone create custom post types and then implementing them is most helpful.
As always - really informative and helpful and clear!
Thank you Ben.
Great video David, thank you! Would you please consider creating one more video to compare these 4 with JetEngine?
Good suggestion. Thank you.
Another excellent video. Thank you!
Good review, but I miss Crocoblock Jetengine and if I am correct the Kadence theme works also with custom Fields
Thanks. Yes, Crocoblock is another option. Kadence Blocks Pro works with ACF. It is possible that the free version of Kadence Blocks works with Toolset.
I just bought Toolset to experiment with on a site I'm developing. The project is pretty complicated with lots of data relationships. Basically, I'm trying to use WooCommerce as the base and build out a complete ERP/MRP system with multi-store inventory management, 3d product configurators (using Verge3D), manufacturing/production management, materials resource planning and accounting. There are tools for all of these things in isolation and a couple of ERP solutions out there that would break the bank to use (Odoo, Salesforce...), so I'm trying to fill in the gaps myself. Yeah, it feels a bit like a frankensoup of software, but it's really my only option. I've also been evaluating the benefits of headless WordPress/WooCommerce. It's dizzying to sort through it all.
My impression is that of these 4 options, Toolset has more of what you need. Toolset has said they are pausing new features while they wait on the direction of Gutenberg to become clear. The good news about Toolset is that their support is pretty good.
@@DavidMcCan Thanks for the info. One thing I like about Pods is it supports GraphQL. Toolset is REST only.
@@georgeyoung108 - Good point.
Great Tut, David! Thank you for the comparison! I was wondering if maybe Toolset is discouraging page builder use due to the pending release of WordPress FSE.
Thanks. Toolset is betting on Gutenberg. They used to integrate with other builders but since Toolset Blocks they pulled back from that. It will be interesting to see how they adapt and integrate with FSE.
Excellent video David, thank you. I've recently starting using Oxygen on bigger builds to help reduce the bloat that most page builders today seem to come saddled with. I absolutely love Oxygen and will likely be using it for every medium to large project going forward. I have lifetime ACF and Toolset but find myself using CPTUI and ACF with Oxygen, any thoughts on which is better with Oxygen, ACF or Toolset (Types)? And then secondly, I've not used the new Toolset Gutenberg integration on a project, have you had any experience with it on larger projects and if so how did you find styling/design in Gutenberg as compared to page builders?
Hi Athlone - ACF + CPTUI for Oxygen. It is what 99% of users are using at the moment. Meta Box support is in alpha, so that may gain popularity, but anyway, the chances of support for ACF features is high. Toolset Blocks is much easier for initial creation, but some advanced features of Views are not available. I've seen a few incompatibilities / glitches with themes also as the Toolset blocks styles are not always targeted as finely as they could be.
@@DavidMcCan Thanks David. I'll stick to CPTUI and ACF for now with Oxygen.
Thanks for the video. Recently I discovered Meta Box. I have a lot of experience using Toolset, but wish they still had the lifetime deal. So, trying to figure out if Meta Box can give me the functionality I need and am used to getting from Toolset.
They are different. On the field and database side they are very similar, but in terms of display on the front-end they have different features.
@@DavidMcCan cool. Thanks for the info. I am comfortable using the Toolset Views. In fact, I prefer the control using HTML and CSS rather than the Gutenberg/Blocks editor.
So, if the functionality is there, I'll love it.
Do you happen to know if Meta Box has similar capabilities to Toolset Views? For instance, can I filter views by specific criteria? Can I create searches for the views? Stuff like that.
For instance, maybe I have a widget for testimonials and I only want to show testimonials I marked as featured.
As long as the control over the content is similar, I don't mind if I have to do some HTML and CSS coding manually. In fact, I prefer to do that manually.
@@linkonprime - Meta Box has Meta Box Views. I have a video on it here. Meta Box doesn't have faceted search like Toolset. It does have some conditional display options.
It is difficult to display custom fields on WordPress, which one is easy to display?
ACF has the most third party support for page builders, block collections, etc.
@@DavidMcCan If I use JetEngine, does it mean that custom fields created by JetEngine can be displayed without editing php file?
@@HaifengZhu-pn3uq - Crocoblock works well with Elementor and with Gutenberg. JetEngine is supported by Bricks and some Gutenberg block collections like Stackable and Greenshift.
@@DavidMcCan Is Crockblock the same product as JetEngine? I suppose Crockblock is the company name of JetEngine
So allneed coding then? There's no visual custom fields and display like views template?
Pods has Pods templates, but they are very simple. Crocoblock JetEngine comes with some Gutenberg blocks. There are a few new products in beta that will be more all in one maybe the end of the year or next year. It may take time for those to gain momentum.
@@DavidMcCan oho, so till then, probably will be dependent on themes specific to that topic like real estate etc.
Are quick searches also a part of this display of relations?
@@1anchit - Or page builders and other tools that work with dynamic data.
I think by default WP search looks at Custom Post Types, but not at custom fields. There are a number of search plugins that let you include custom fields.
Hi David, I read all the comments below and also have read all your suggestions. Yet, I want to ask you this - now since the Oxygen v3.8.1 is available, do you still recommend ACF + CPTUI for Oxygen or Meta Box? Is Oxygen's support for Meta Box still in Alpha or does it completely supports MetaBox? I don't like coding.
Oxygen 3.9 adds Meta Box support. It is still in Beta. I don't think that support for Meta Box is quite as good as for ACF, but that could change.
@@DavidMcCan Thanks for the reply. I am new to both. Is it possible to do literally everything with ACF that can be done with MetaBox ? I am not concerned about pricing. Also, projects don't have any user dashboard etc. just the sites with databases. I did refer to a comparison on metabox official site, but they are using 5stars which doesn't give the entire picture. What is YOUR take? Thanks
@@levwii Meta Box has more features than ACF, but it does not have as good support by 3rd party tools. There are a lot of variables. What tools do you plan to use? What features do you plan to use? If you are unsure then maybe start with free ACF and CPT-UI.
@@DavidMcCan ThankQ. ThankQ. ThanQ. I will go with ACF route. Thanks again.
Which one is good for beginner non coder including jet engine?
Advanced Custom Fields. The free version in the WordPress plugin directory has 2 million + active installs, more than all the others combined. You can do a lot with it, it has the most tools support, there are lots of tutorials, and it is pretty straightforward. You can use it with CPT-UI (There is a video on that on this channel). I wouldn't recommend Toolset at the moment.
Hi David, a quick update; I am sure you know already.
Oxygen 4.0 is out and now it natively supports Meta Box!
Do you think it is now the right time to go for OXYGEN Builder with Meta Box or keep using ACF+CPTUI ?
They both work. If you already own one and / or are an expert with one, then I'd use that. In many cases it is a personal preference. If there is an advanced feature that Meta Box that you need and ACF doesn't have it then check that it is supported, but that would be a good reason to switch. Bricks is a newer builder that already has a lot of features, but is still behind Oxygen. Oxygen 4.0 has some nice polish and is faster now.
@@DavidMcCan My reply seems to have disappeared. Here is my 2nd attempt.
Pricing is not a problem. I believe MetaBox offers literally everything ACF offers. I am more into the speed of the site. Once the database size increases, site speed shouldn't suffer. MetaBox has a unique add-on that ACF does not offer - MB Custom Table. It saves custom fields data to custom table instead of the default meta tables, reducing database size and increasing performance. I think this is a big deal for me. Have you worked on sites with very large databases?
@@Lee-ee - TH-cam algorithm automatically deletes comments and seems to include good ones sometimes. ACF is developer friendly, but Meta Box is even more geared towards developers. If you're OK working a bit with code then you can take advantage of those features. The data will automatically be saved to the custom table, but you will need to adjust the API call to retrieve it to show on the front-end. Oxygen's dynamic data integration, and other third party tools that integrate with MB, may not support custom tables. That's why I mention being willing to work with code. It is a good performance boost. By the way, there is a third party addon for ACF for working with custom tables. Toolset and Pods have this ability also. If your site has a large database you might want to check out the tools from wpintense dot com.
I've worked with sites with large databases, but they weren't WordPress. They were custom coded ASP.NET.
@@DavidMcCan wpintense is something interesting; I had always looked at CSS, JS, Images, etc for optimization; this is something new for me as top-notch database optimization through a WP plugin was not heard-off; except just the basic cleaning of DB. There are many things to learn. Hats off to people like you who are more than happy to share their wisdom with the world. God bless.
A quick question:
CustomTable, is this feature a deal-breaker for you David? MetaBox does have an issue in order to work with wpallimport/Export plugin while ACF supports it wholeheartedly. As you said, 3rd party support with ACF is great. I just wonder if proper caching will be fine to speed up a site generally. And also, my sites are not extremely big, running into 10,000+ products, etc. Also, having to leave the massive support enjoyed by ACF is making me feel like back-off from MetaBox. But, everyone was crazy speaking about MetaBox over ACF recently(Eg., Oxygen supporting MB); which is what caused all the urge to try out Metabox in the 1st place. Seems like - ACF is the way forward, and give MetaBox a skip.
@@Lee-ee - My databases don't usually have that many records.
Is metabox compatible with kadence blocks?
Not yet. Some of the basic field types might show, but I don't think it is safe to use until it is officially supported.
I like your videos very much, but I listen to them on at least 1.25 … 😇
I often listen to videos at a faster speed also. Lol, I tend to speak slowly. Some people have thanked me as they find it easier to follow.
@@DavidMcCan It is a matter of taste and prior knowledge, I guess. I am eagerly awaiting your talk at the Pagebuilder Summit. Regards
@@DavidMcCan As a non-native english speaker, I am very okay with your discussion speed in this video. 😅😂
@@arvi8843 - Thank you. I've had several people tell me that and I'm happy that my speed makes it easy to follow.
Meta Box and Toolset both overpriced. I'm sticking with ACF for now. Thanks for the video.
Yeah, the Meta Box plans are steep, especially if you just have a few sites. Toolset pricing doesn't seem too bad to me. Of course ACF free is pretty full featured and a lot of people have the lifetime plan from back when it was being offered.
Actually, I just looked again and Meta Box does have packages other than unlimited.
@@DavidMcCan the personal lifetime is limited to 3 sites. Thanks.