Loading content…
TOP 3 ALTERNATIVES — RANKED
Three you should evaluate first.
Filtered from 12 candidates by feature similarity, audit score, and review velocity. The hero treatment is editorial — these earned more space because the data did.
Get Custom Field Values
custom fields#1TOP PICK
5.004 reviews
Not auditedAudit score
Pick if you're surveying the marketplace
Widely used on this marketplace — not a like-for-like swap. AppRanks found no app sharing Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields's category, so this is not a replacement for it — it is a widely-used custom fields option shown for market context. Compare it against your own requirements rather than as a swap.
List More Custom Field Names
custom fields#2RUNNER-UP
5.004 reviews
Not auditedAudit score
Pick if you're cost-sensitive
Adjacent tool, different job. Different use case from Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields. Listed because it is among the most-adopted custom fields apps on this marketplace, not because it covers the same job.
Easy Content Manager (ECM) – Custom Post Types, Custom Fields & Content Management
custom fields#3VALUE PICK
5.003 reviews
Not auditedAudit score
Pick if you're mapping adjacent tooling
Popular alternative to evaluate on its own merits. Solves a different problem than Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields. Useful market context; verify the capability overlap yourself before treating it as an option.
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON
Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields versus the top 3.
Five rows, all loaded above the fold. Wins are highlighted; nothing's hidden behind a tab.
RANKS #4 THROUGH #12
The next 9, denser.
Lower-ranked but legitimate. Click any row for the full profile — or compare side-by-side with Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields.
How these alternatives are ranked
Scored daily. Three signals, weighted and blended. No vendor money changes anything.
45%Feature similarity
N-gram match against Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields's feature signature, weighted by category overlap.
35%Audit + rating
Listing quality (0–100) blended with rolling 90-day rating average. Penalizes thin listings.
20%Review velocity
Reviews added in trailing 30 days, normalized by category baseline. Surfaces rising challengers.
Every WordPress alternative on this page is scraped, normalized, and re-scored every 24 hours. We don't accept paid placement, vendor-funded "best of" content, or sponsored ranking — and we publish the rules so you can audit them yourself. If a vendor disagrees with their position, that's between them and the data.
WHEN DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO SWITCH FROM NATIVE CUSTOM FIELDS – CUSTOM CONTENT TYPES AND META FIELDS?
Four reasons people leave.
Decision triggers, not marketing. If two or more apply, your shortlist starts with the apps named below each card.
Pricing has outgrown your usage
If your usage of Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields has crossed a pricing-tier breakpoint, per-unit cost is usually where alternatives diverge most clearly. Some apps in the list above carry a free tier; others are paid from day one. Compare the published plans on each alternative's page against your current bill — the gap is the only number worth acting on, and it is specific to your usage.
List More Custom Field Names · Get Custom Field ValuesYou need a feature outside the focus
Each WordPress category has a feature spectrum. The "Similar feature set" badge above marks alternatives whose feature signature most overlaps with Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields. The "Category leader" badge marks apps that may approach the same category from a different feature angle — useful if you want to widen rather than narrow your toolset.
Get Custom Field ValuesSupport response has slowed you down
Support quality is the hardest thing to read from a listing, and it is the most common reason a switch gets made. Read the most RECENT reviews on each alternative's profile rather than the lifetime average — recency is what tells you how the app is supported today, and trailing review velocity is the freshest signal AppRanks tracks.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
Answers built from the data.
Built from the same scores the ranking uses — so they won't contradict the table.
For most accounts under typical category usage, the answer depends on tier. Get Custom Field Values is in the unknown band (—), while Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields is unknown (—). At parity scale, the cheaper option can save 30–60% — but feature-for-feature swaps usually narrow the gap above the second tier.
VERDICT · UPDATED TODAY
If you're moving from Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields, the most common landing spots are Get Custom Field Values (unknown feature match, audit null/100) and List More Custom Field Names (pricing leverage + breadth). Skip Repeaterly – ACF Repeater, Flexible Content & Dynamic Tags for Elementor unless your use case is unusual.
If feature parity matters most
→ Get Custom Field Values
Unknown feature parity. Audit null, 5.00★.
If pricing matters most
→ List More Custom Field Names
Best for cost-sensitive teams. 5.00★ across 4 reviews.
If you're scaling enterprise
→ Easy Content Manager (ECM) – Custom Post Types, Custom Fields & Content Management
Strongest scale fit when category usage exceeds typical thresholds. Vendor-evaluate before committing.
Continue your research
Audit Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields's listing
See where Native Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields ranks 0–100 on listing completeness, screenshots, and description quality.
Open auditNative Custom Fields – Custom Content Types and Meta Fields vs Get Custom Field Values
Side-by-side feature deltas, shared keywords, rating curves over the trailing 12 months.
Open compareWordPress category leaders
Highest-rated WordPress apps by intent. The category-by-category leaderboard.
Open best
