Heading 1
Heading 2
Heading 3
Heading 4
Heading 5
Heading 6
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Block quote
Ordered list
- Item 1
- Item 2
- Item 3
Unordered list
- Item A
- Item B
- Item C
Bold text
Emphasis
Superscript
Subscript
The decision on the table is whether to commit your commerce roadmap to a separate front end, or to get more out of a traditional storefront first. A wrong call in either direction is expensive. Go headless without the team and releases slow down while costs rise. Stay traditional while the business outgrows its templates and every campaign becomes a workaround.
Headless changes how your digital team works
A headless storefront turns one release process into two. The commerce back end on Salesforce B2C Commerce keeps its own cycle, while the storefront gets a separate codebase, pipeline and test suite. Someone has to own that front end as a product: set priorities, accept releases and answer for its performance.
That shift touches more people than developers. Merchandisers keep working in Business Manager, but content editors, designers and analysts now depend on a front-end team for anything that changes the page structure. In our Discover phase we map those dependencies before any design starts, because they decide the staffing plan. The architecture itself is explained in our overview of headless commerce on Composable Storefront.
The businesses headless suits best
Headless suits businesses whose storefront is a product in its own right. They release front-end changes often, run several countries or brands on one platform, or serve apps and other touchpoints from the same commerce engine. They also have, or are prepared to hire, front-end developers who stay after launch.
Budget horizon matters as much as scope. Headless spreads its cost over years of ownership, so it fits organisations that plan the storefront as a multi-year investment with a stable team. The individual business reasons are weighed in which reasons to go headless hold.
When a traditional storefront is the better answer
A traditional storefront is the better answer when your front end changes a few times a year and your team has no front-end capacity to spare. SFRA, the Storefront Reference Architecture, remains supported on Salesforce B2C Commerce and has a large base of ready-made integrations. Salesforce also launched Storefront Next in the Summer '26 release, a newer server-first storefront, which widens the choice further.
Choosing the traditional route is not a step back. It frees budget for what customers notice, such as product data, search results and checkout. The trade-offs between the options are set out in SFRA versus Composable Storefront.
What headless demands after launch
The largest cost of headless arrives after go-live. Front-end developers, a product owner, test automation and performance monitoring all continue as long as the storefront runs. Managed Runtime, the Salesforce hosting service for Composable Storefront, takes servers and scaling off your plate. The code, the releases and the page speed stay yours.
Internal ownership is where business cases most often fall short. A plan that budgets the build and assumes the partner will carry the rest leaves the storefront without an owner the day the project ends. We ask for that owner before the build starts.
Two quantities drive the running cost. The number of custom components sets how much code your team maintains, and the release frequency sets how often that code is tested and deployed. Both grow with ambition. A small set of well-built components released every week usually costs less to own than a large custom estate released every month.
