We have to set up 70+ micro-sites in Sitecore so looking for best approach for long run. We already have 3 sites on production on single Sitecore instance i.e. we did multi-site implementation. See below tree structure in Content Editor

--Home //Keep all content/pages
--SiteData //Keep common content/navigation menu content
--SiteSettings //Keep setting specific to site

Now to set up 70+ microsite here is the options

Option 1 I will keep continue adding new site node below Site3 for ex: Site4(Home,SiteData,SiteSettings) , Site5(Home,SiteData,SiteSettings),Site6(Home,SiteData,SiteSettings) and so on I'm not sure if this is the best approach because finally we will end up having lots of site node in tree structure

Option 2 I will set up only one sitenode below Site3 called Microsite but in this approach not sure how would I maintain each microsite specific navigation menu and content as well.

Which one is best approach from above or there is any other way we can handle this set up

UPDATE 03/28

The Urls for sites will be

and so on
  • Does each site different in terms of content, navigation? Mar 28, 2017 at 5:35
  • yes it will be different
    – Sukhjeevan
    Mar 28, 2017 at 14:21
  • Please see answer below Mar 28, 2017 at 14:26

2 Answers 2


I would go with Option 1 because of the following reasons:

  1. Security and User Access on items are much easier to handle than have a single site node. If you have different teams working on different sites, you may create roles that are based on the Site node and assign accordingly to the different users.

  2. Having different site nodes allows for maintainability and extensibility as each site will have its own content.

  3. If tomorrow you have multiple items that are shared across the different sites, you may create a container which is shared across all the sites.

Also, depending on the different sites that you have, you may also break it into clusters. For example, among the 70 microsites, you may break it by Regions:

  • Europe
  • EMEA
  • NALA (North America and Latam)

which makes the content tree looks like:

    |-- Site UK
    |-- Site FR
    |-- Site DE
    |- Site JP
    |- Site TW
    |- Site US
    |- Site BR
    |- Site CA
    |- Site AR


Since you will have the same domain, you can make use of the virtualFolder and physicalFolder.

So, it will looks as follows in the sitedefinition.config:



More info can be found on my post here

  • Thanks Hishaam for suggestion on this...I did update my post please see that....
    – Sukhjeevan
    Mar 28, 2017 at 15:14
  • @Sukhi, I have updated the answer. Please see update section Mar 28, 2017 at 15:21
  • ok I was thinking about the same as I already gone through that blog also...but little curious about option 1 because we will ended up lots of sitenode in tree structure....not sure if it's fine or not... one thing just wanted to confirm from the beginning of sitecore we have been listening about set up microsite in sitecore... Does this is the one which we are discussing here... OR really microsite terminology is totally different in context of sitecore and has any other module/approach
    – Sukhjeevan
    Mar 28, 2017 at 17:09
  • It is not an issue to have 70 site nodes since even on the project i am working, we already have 65 sites. The main difference is that we have split it into clusters. That is different servers which host a sitecore instance and has a group of sites. For example, we have a server with a sitecore instance where only the europe sites are presents Mar 28, 2017 at 18:29
  • There is a module for microsite on marketplace. You may check it: marketplace.sitecore.net/en/Modules/Dynamic_Sites_Manager.aspx Mar 28, 2017 at 18:52

You do not need to have your site definitions all at the same level. You can do any amount of grouping with subfolders to create an easier navigation for somebody to find the site your are looking for.

I agree that 70 sites all at the route is very difficult to navigate. Some might complain about going through a tree structure, but I'm a folder guy and I like to keep things in neat little folders so that I can drill down to the one I want (or search if I'm feeling lazy).

How you group will depend on what makes the most sense for the content/audience of your sites. Should you group by region, industry, target audience? What will help your authors know where to find the site? What grouping makes sense?

In the end, a structure such as this helps you have fewer nodes at each level:

  • Microsites
    • Industry1 (e.g.Hotel)
      • Region1
        • Site1
        • Site3
      • Region2
    • Industry2 (e.g Finance)
      • Region1
      • Site2
  • thanks Jay for you feedback on this...but keeping different node for each site we can set access level for each site owner...meaning site specific owner will see only relevant site node....and similarly we can maintain site specific navigation menu...does that make sense?
    – Sukhjeevan
    Mar 29, 2017 at 3:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.