Every founder building a marketing site asks the same question, usually after three quotes that each assume a different answer. WordPress, Webflow or something custom in Next.js? All three can produce a site you would be proud of. The wrong choice is not the one that looks worse on launch day. It is the one that fights you eighteen months later, when the site has to do something it was not built for.
Here is how we think about it, with the honesty of a studio that builds in Next.js and still tells clients when Webflow is the better answer.
What each one actually is
WordPress is an open-source content system that you host yourself, or through a managed host. Its strength is the ecosystem: a theme for every look, a plugin for every feature, and a generation of people who know how to edit it. Its weakness is the same ecosystem: every plugin is code you did not write, running on every page, and the sum of them is why so many WordPress sites are slow on a phone and break on update day.
Webflow is a hosted visual builder with a content system attached. A designer can build a genuinely custom layout without writing code, and a marketing team can edit copy, images and collection items in a clean editor. It is a closed platform: the site lives on Webflow's hosting, custom logic is limited to what embeds and integrations allow, and the code export is a snapshot rather than a way out.
Next.js is not a builder. It is a framework for writing a site as software: React on the front, server rendering for speed and search, hosted on Vercel or similar, with content coming from a headless content system or a database your team edits through its own interface. Nothing is assumed, which is the point and the cost.
The five questions that decide it
1. Who edits the site, and how often?
If a marketing team will change layouts weekly without a developer, Webflow is built for exactly that. If they change copy and publish articles but never touch layout, all three work, provided the Next.js build comes with a content system the team can use. If nobody will edit it more than quarterly, editing convenience should not drive the decision at all.
2. What does it have to talk to?
A contact form and a newsletter: anything. A booking engine, a CRM with two-way sync, a customer portal with logins, a WhatsApp automation, a product catalogue, pricing that changes by market: this is where builders run out of road. Webflow can embed and integrate a good deal; it cannot run your logic. WordPress can do almost anything with plugins and custom code, at the cost of complexity and speed. Next.js does it natively, because the site is already an application.
3. How fast does it have to be on a phone?
Speed is a ranking factor, a conversion factor and an ad-cost factor: a slow landing page wastes the clicks you paid for. A well-built Webflow site is quick. A WordPress site can be quick with discipline and a good host, and usually is not after two years of plugins. A Next.js site has the highest ceiling, because server rendering, image optimisation and code splitting are the defaults, and there is no plugin layer to accrete. If the site will carry paid traffic, this question matters more than the first two.
4. What does it cost over three years?
Count all of it: the build, the hosting, the platform seats, the paid plugins, the maintenance and the redesign you will want. WordPress is cheapest to start and the most expensive to keep honest: updates, security, plugin renewals, the developer on retainer to fix what broke. Webflow charges monthly for hosting and seats and needs little maintenance. A Next.js site costs the most to build, runs on hosting that is often free or cheap at marketing-site scale, and has no plugin renewals; its maintenance is whatever you change.
5. What happens when you outgrow it?
A marketing site becomes a storefront, or gains a customer area, or needs a second language, or has to share a design system with the app. WordPress can be pushed a long way, awkwardly. Webflow generally means rebuilding elsewhere and re-entering content. Next.js means adding a route.
When we recommend each
- WordPress when the site is content-heavy, the team already runs WordPress well, the budget is tight, and speed and integrations are not on the roadmap. Choose a managed host and a strict plugin budget.
- Webflow when the site is a designer-led marketing site that the team will visually edit often, with standard integrations and no custom logic. This is a genuinely good answer for many funded startups, and we say so.
- Next.js when performance is a requirement, when the site has to integrate with real systems, when it will become a storefront or a product, when it is bilingual, or when you want to own the code outright. This is where our work sits, and the case studies are the argument.
Two things people get wrong
"Custom means I cannot edit it." A Next.js site without a content system is a mistake, not a feature. Ours ship with one the team edits; the difference from Webflow is that layout changes go through a developer while content changes do not.
"Migration will cost me my search rankings." Only if the URLs change without redirects. A rebuild from WordPress to Next.js that maps every old URL, keeps titles and structured data, and launches with a sitemap typically holds its rankings and then improves on speed. We treat the URL map as part of the build, not an afterthought.
The short version
Choose by who edits, what it connects to, how fast it must be, what it costs over three years and where it is going. If two of those answers point at "the site is really a product", it is a Next.js build. If they point at "it is a beautiful brochure a team will edit weekly", it is Webflow. If they point at "we need a solid, familiar content site for little money", it is WordPress on a good host.
If you have quotes in hand for more than one of these, send them over. The first call is free and the written point of view that follows says which of the three fits, even when the answer is not us.
