microCMS free plan limits: what Hobby includes and when to reassess

microCMS Hobby is a ¥0-per-month option for starting a small content-driven website. Whether it remains a good fit depends on model count, transfer, collaborators, and content volume, as well as API requests. If your existing setup works well, measure the constraint you are approaching and compare optimization, a paid plan, and migration before changing services.

This article is written by the operator of genko.me. microCMS's official pricing page and genko.me's published documentation were checked on October 21, 2026. Recheck current conditions before signing up or changing plans.

What Hobby includes

The following is a selection of decision-relevant conditions from the official microCMS pricing page, rather than an exhaustive feature list.

The same pricing table includes content, image, and management APIs, scheduled publishing, and history viewing/comparison. CSV export, general file uploads, permission management, version restoration, and multiple environments are outside Hobby. Evaluate feature requirements separately from usage allowances.

Request count, data transfer, and storage measure different things. An unlimited value in one row does not remove the constraints in the other rows. Understanding that distinction is more useful than looking for a single headline limit.

Which constraints do individual projects encounter first?

There is no universal sequence. A text-heavy blog, an image-heavy portfolio, and a publication with several contributors create different pressures. The scenarios below are planning examples, rather than claims about usage statistics.

More distinct content types put pressure on the model structure

Articles, authors, categories, projects, profiles, and site settings can each need an independent structure. A website with few records may still need several separately managed collections. Count the structures you need to edit, rather than the number of pages you render.

When your model structure approaches the allowance, consider whether closely related content can share a structure. Avoid combining unrelated material solely to fit a free plan: unused fields, conditional validation, and frontend branches can make everyday maintenance harder.

If a cleaner design resolves the issue, staying is reasonable. If independent models will continue to grow, compare the appropriate plan with alternatives. Record the current structure, proposed additions, and maintenance implications together.

Media and repeated fetching put pressure on transfer

Traffic alone does not determine usage. Response size, delivered images, repeated fetching, cache behavior, and build-time access all affect the result. The official transfer explanation (Japanese) covers both content API JSON and images or files retrieved from media URLs. Do not convert page views directly into CMS requests without examining how the site fetches data.

For a rough illustration, fetching a 200 KB response 50,000 times is approximately 10 GB in decimal units. This is arithmetic, rather than a reproduction of the provider's metering: compression, caching, and other delivery paths need separate consideration. Use observed usage to establish actual headroom.

The pricing page's transfer note says the allowance resets on the first day of the following month, restoring API access. Identify uncached reads and builds that depend on API availability. The important operational question is what stops working if a required upstream request cannot complete.

Collaboration creates both seat and permission requirements

An individual project can still involve an author, reviewer, and maintainer. Include temporary contributors and a future handover when deciding who needs dashboard access.

Seat availability and granular permissions are separate requirements. An invitation alone does not prove that a reviewer can safely perform the intended task. Decide who needs to edit content, approve publication, and maintain API settings, then evaluate the plan against those responsibilities.

Long-running sites accumulate records and backup needs

News items, glossary entries, and product records may grow steadily even when each item is small. Track additions and retention alongside the current total. A useful estimate considers the next six months and the following year.

Also define what a usable backup must contain. Body content, models, relationships, and original media files have different extraction requirements. The absence of a dashboard CSV export does not, by itself, establish that data cannot be retrieved. Check official specifications against the material you need to preserve.

Keep a small usage record

You do not need to audit every edit. Record actual values periodically, and revisit them before a campaign, a large media addition, or a new content model.

A transfer increase after a launch points toward fetching and delivery analysis. A model constraint caused by a new content section needs a structural or plan decision. Separating the causes avoids spending time on an optimization that cannot solve the actual problem.

How genko.me Free compares

These free plans constrain different resources. The microCMS column follows its official pricing page; the genko.me column follows Plans and limits.

A storage allowance and a monthly transfer allowance cannot be compared as though they are the same resource. genko.me's storage is the total retained content and media, rather than a monthly delivery allocation. Its lack of API and record count caps also does not remove storage, rate, or fair-use conditions. A project with a large media archive should weigh storage carefully.

In genko.me, a personal workspace and free teams with the same owner share the personal storage allowance. Adding free teams does not create independent storage allocations. Localized bodies and unpublished changes saved alongside published content also contribute to content storage. See Plans and limits for the accounting rules.

genko.me's content exports exclude image and file binaries and revision history. Having CSV export is useful, but does not make the export a complete backup. Check Import and export and test the actual data you would need to retain.

For the broader product comparison, use genko.me versus microCMS. This article concentrates on free-plan decisions rather than repeating the full comparison or migration procedure.

Choose between optimization, upgrading, and moving

Optimize an otherwise suitable setup

For transfer pressure, inspect unnecessary refetches, selected fields, image dimensions, caching, and build frequency. Fetching only what is needed makes usage easier to reason about with any provider.

Optimization cannot add an essential permission feature or create more independent model allowance. Separate reducible usage from required product capabilities. A complicated workaround can cost more to maintain than an appropriate paid plan.

Consider a paid microCMS plan

If your models, editorial routine, and integrations already work well, a plan change can be a practical option. Remaining with the current service avoids data conversion and reduces the amount of website behavior that needs to be revalidated.

Use the official pricing page to map requirements to a specific plan. Do not assume that any paid plan provides every feature. List the needed collaborators, models, transfer, permissions, and restoration behavior, and check the tax treatment and contract unit before estimating the actual cost.

Test an alternative

A persistent mismatch in structure, editing, budget, or portability is a reasonable reason to evaluate another service. genko.me is one candidate, but account for changes to API responses, rich text, references, images, and preview integration.

Use an ordinary article, an unusually long one, and content with images and relationships. Complete save, review, publish, and update propagation, then record remaining manual work. Compare recurring subscription differences separately from one-time migration work and ongoing maintenance.

A checklist before changing anything

• Identify whether the issue is a usage allowance or a missing capability.

• Measure actual usage rather than guessing from traffic.

• Inspect cache behavior and image delivery where relevant.

• Check whether free-plan workarounds are complicating editing or maintenance.

• Compare the appropriate existing-service plan with the total cost of moving.

• Verify content, relationships, images, and publishing on a candidate service.

• Establish how to retain the material needed for recovery or another migration.

If there is ample headroom and the workflow fits, continuing with Hobby while observing usage is a reasonable decision. The goal is sustainable publishing rather than using every free allowance or moving as soon as a constraint appears.

FAQ

Can I keep using microCMS for free?

Assess whether your operation fits Hobby's current conditions. Distinguish the plan from a time-limited trial and consult the official pricing page. Present conditions do not guarantee that future terms will remain unchanged.

Do unlimited API requests remove the need to monitor transfer?

Request count and transfer are separate constraints. Check the official transfer conditions against measured fetching and delivery, including what happens if the allowance is exceeded.

Is genko.me Free a better deal than Hobby?

That depends on your workload. Model count, record volume, media storage, editorial needs, and delivery constraints can lead to different decisions. Check genko.me's plan specifications and test the workflow rather than choosing from one row of a table.

Do I need to migrate when a limit gets close?

Measure the cause, then compare optimization, a suitable microCMS plan, and an alternative. If the current service fits, upgrading can avoid migration work. The comparison page offers additional context if you decide to evaluate genko.me.