The choice is between a site built with a content management system such as WordPress, and a site built in code with a modern framework. Neither is better in every case. The decision turns on who will change the site after launch and how often.
How the two compare
| WordPress | Custom-built (for example Astro) | |
|---|---|---|
| Editing | Staff can edit pages, posts and products themselves | Text changes are simple; anything beyond needs a developer |
| Speed | Heavier by default, and tuning is needed | Fast by default, with little code sent to the visitor |
| Markup | Depends heavily on the theme and plugins | Clean and easy for search engines to read |
| Upkeep | Core, theme and plugin updates are ongoing | Fewer moving parts to update |
| Best for | Regular posts, products or a team that edits often | A mostly fixed site where speed and search matter most |
Both can rank. The SEO fundamentals apply to each, and a slow WordPress site can be tuned. The work needed to get there differs.
Is this for a business my size?
A small service business that changes its site a few times a year suits a custom-built site: it loads fast and costs little to maintain. A school, an NGO, a shop or a publisher that posts news, notices, reports or products every week suits WordPress, because the staff can do that themselves without paying a developer for each edit.
Can I just do this myself?
Editing is the real question. On WordPress, staff can update text, images and posts after a short orientation. On a custom-built site, a developer makes changes beyond text, which is a cost and a wait.
Hosted website builders are a third path. They let an owner build the whole site alone, at the cost of control over structure, speed and search settings. They suit a very simple site and rarely suit a business that depends on being found in search.
The same decision runs through every build covered on the web design and development page.