Framer vs Astro: which should your site be built on?
For most marketing sites, Framer: your team edits on a visual canvas, hosting and SEO settings are built in, and an approved design goes live in about three weeks. Astro is the better choice when the site has to live in your own repository, on your own hosting, or read content from a headless CMS shared with other channels.
Trusted by B2B and premium service brands in 17+ countries.
Side by side
Framer vs Astro
- What it is
- Framer: A visual website builder with hosting and a CMS included.Astro: A web framework for content-rich sites, written in code.
- Who edits layouts
- Framer: Your team, on a visual canvas.Astro: Developers, in the codebase.
- Content editing
- Framer: Built-in CMS with collections and fields.Astro: Any headless CMS, files in the repository, or both, through content collections.
- Hosting
- Framer: Hosted by Framer; no HTML export for self-hosting.Astro: Static files anywhere, or official adapters for Node, Netlify, Vercel and Cloudflare.
- JavaScript on the page
- Framer: Managed by Framer.Astro: None by default; components opt in with a client directive.
- SEO settings
- Framer: Sitemap, robots.txt and canonical tags generated for you; titles and descriptions per page and CMS item.Astro: Everything is code: the official sitemap integration, metadata and canonicals in your templates.
The short version
The verdict
Framer is a visual website builder with hosting, a CMS and SEO settings in one product. Astro is a web framework: you write the site in code, choose where it is hosted and connect whichever CMS you like. They answer different questions, so the choice is about who runs the site and where it has to live.
If marketers will build and change pages, Framer removes the developer from every edit. If engineers will own the site, Astro gives them a normal codebase with version control, reviews and any hosting they want, at the cost of putting layout changes in developers' hands.
The one-line rule
Choose Framer when your marketing team runs the site. Choose Astro when your engineering team owns it.
Framer vs Astro at a glance
Both produce fast, well-structured sites. The differences are about editing, ownership and hosting.
| Dimension | Framer | Astro |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A visual website builder with hosting and a CMS included. | A web framework for content-rich sites, written in code. |
| Who edits layouts | Your team, on a visual canvas. | Developers, in the codebase. |
| Content editing | Built-in CMS with collections and fields. | Any headless CMS, files in the repository, or both, through content collections. |
| Hosting | Hosted by Framer; no HTML export for self-hosting. | Static files anywhere, or official adapters for Node, Netlify, Vercel and Cloudflare. |
| JavaScript on the page | Managed by Framer. | None by default; components opt in with a client directive. |
| SEO settings | Sitemap, robots.txt and canonical tags generated for you; titles and descriptions per page and CMS item. | Everything is code: the official sitemap integration, metadata and canonicals in your templates. |
| Redirects | Site settings, with wildcards and captures. | Config file or the host's own redirect rules. |
| Time to launch | About three weeks from an approved design for a typical marketing site (our published range). | Scoped per project, since every template is written in code. |
| Best fit | Marketing, brand and product sites run by marketing teams. | Content-led sites owned by engineering teams, or sharing content with other channels. |
Where Astro genuinely wins
Astro wins whenever control matters more than visual editing: of the code, the hosting and the content model.
Four situations where we recommend Astro over Framer:
The site must live in your repository
Pull requests, code review, automated checks and the same deployment pipeline as your product.
A builder project cannot sit inside that workflow.
Hosting is not negotiable
Framer hosts every Framer site. Astro builds static files you can serve from any host, or runs on adapters for Node, Netlify, Vercel and Cloudflare.
One content model for many channels
With a headless CMS such as Sanity, the same structured content feeds the site, an app and other tools.
Astro reads it through content collections at build time.
Every script accounted for
Astro ships no client-side JavaScript unless a component asks for it, so developers decide exactly what runs in the browser.
Where Framer wins
Framer wins whenever the site's job is to present, convince and convert, and the people running it are not developers.
Editing without a developer
Marketers change copy, layouts and CMS items on a visual canvas.
In Astro, anything beyond content goes through a developer.
Faster from design to live
Layout, CMS, hosting and SEO settings are in one product, which is why a typical Framer build goes live in about three weeks from an approved design.
Nothing to host or patch
Framer runs the hosting, so there is no build pipeline, server or dependency updates for your team to look after.
SEO basics generated for you
Sitemap, robots.txt and canonical tags come automatically; in Astro those are your code's job and need testing.
Who builds it
We build in both. Most projects start in Framer, and we recommend Astro when a project clearly needs code ownership, its own hosting or a shared content model.
If you already have a Framer site and are outgrowing it, our Framer to Astro migration guide explains what moves, what is rebuilt and how rankings are protected.
Common questions
Answers, up front.
Is Astro faster than Framer?
Both can produce fast sites. Astro gives developers full control over every script on the page, while Framer manages that for you. In practice speed depends more on images, fonts and scripts than on the platform.
Can I move from Framer to Astro later?
Yes. Framer has no code export for self-hosting, so the front end is rebuilt, but CMS content exports with a plugin and URLs can usually stay the same.
Which is better for SEO?
Neither by default. Framer generates sitemaps, robots.txt and canonicals for you; Astro makes them code you control and must test. Content and links decide rankings either way.
Do you recommend Astro to Framer clients?
Only when it solves a real problem. We build most marketing sites in Framer; Astro is for teams that need a codebase, their own hosting or a shared content model.
Not sure which one fits?
Tell us who will run the site and what it has to do, and we will tell you honestly which platform suits it.