IBM сравнивает Drupal, Joomla, TYPO3.

Typo3 is big. Big application. Big community. Big adoption. Big list of
extended features and contributions. The learning curve is big, too. There is no doubt that Typo3 could do all we required, but there seemed to be other issues in addition to complexity.

The markup generated by a lot of the core and contributed modules used
structure from the mid to late '90s, with lots of table layouts, not much use of effectively placed CSS ID and class attributes, and sometimes invalid structure. We wanted to use current best practices to keep
our development iterations flexible, so this wasn't going to help timely development.

The templating system also seemed very complex compared to other solutions. The time invested in understanding how to theme the Web content outweighed the power of the templating system.

The administrative interface felt awkward and old, especially compared to
Mambo. This was an important

consideration, because we needed to hand off the eventual administration of
the site.

If we'd had more time, Typo3 might have been an option. But, it seemed like
it needed a rewrite to keep it fresh and competitive with other CMS that are emerging. It appears that the
issue of using standards based xHTML and CSS is being addressed in the new version of Typo3.