Next.js vs WordPress
Both can rank, both can be fast, and both can be a mess. The decision is not about which technology is more modern — it is about who edits the site, how often, and whether you have engineers.
Free proposal · No contracts over 30 days · Reply within one business day
Next.js
React with server rendering
Choose it when the site is part of an application, when you have or will hire engineers, or when the interface needs behaviour a template system cannot express.
Strengths
- Server-rendered HTML, so crawlers get content without executing JavaScript
- One codebase for the marketing site and the product
- Component model that scales to a large team
- No plugin ecosystem to audit, patch or renew
- Rendering strategy chosen per route
Trade-offs
- Editors need a CMS wired in — it is not included
- Every change needs a developer and a deploy
- Higher build cost, typically 1.5–2× a comparable WordPress site
- Hosting and CI are decisions you now own
WordPress
The CMS 40% of the web runs on
Choose it when the site is mostly content, your team publishes without a developer, and you need a large ecosystem of ready-made functionality.
Strengths
- Serves HTML natively — no rendering problem to solve
- Editors publish without engineering involvement
- Enormous plugin ecosystem for common needs
- Cheap, universally available hosting and a large hiring pool
- Lower build cost and faster to launch
Trade-offs
- Plugin sprawl becomes a security and performance liability
- Performance takes real work; the default is slow
- Updates can break things without warning
- Page builders create lock-in and heavy pages
Where each one actually wins
| Criterion | Next.js | WordPress |
|---|---|---|
| SEO out of the box | Excellent, with correct configuration | Excellent, natively |
| Editor independence | Needs a CMS integration | Built in |
| Performance ceiling | Very high | High, with work |
| Performance floor | High | Low — the default is slow |
| Build cost | $12k–$45k typical | $6.5k–$25k typical |
| Ongoing maintenance | Dependency updates, low risk | Core and plugin updates, higher risk |
| Application features | Native | Possible but awkward |
| Hiring pool | Smaller, more expensive | Very large |
| Time to launch | 8–14 weeks | 5–9 weeks |
Our recommendation
For most businesses whose website is a marketing site, WordPress is the right answer and we will say so — including when we are the ones quoting. It is cheaper, your team can run it, and its SEO behaviour is correct by default. Move to Next.js when the site is genuinely part of a product, when marketing and application share components, or when your WordPress estate has become unmaintainable. "It feels dated" is not a reason; a rebuild that loses your redirect map costs far more than it returns.
Any question in your mind?
The questions we get asked most, answered without the sales gloss. If yours is not here, ask us directly — you will get a straight answer either way.
Still have questions?
Book 30 minutes with a strategist. No deck, no pitch — just answers about your situation.
Book a callLooking for pricing, contract terms or timelines?
Read all FAQsWhat happens next
- Next.js DevelopmentProduction Next.js builds with server rendering, image optimisation and Core Web Vitals budgets enforced in CI.Read
- WordPress DevelopmentCustom WordPress themes and plugins, built lean — no page builder bloat, no forty plugins doing one job each.Read
- Headless CMS DevelopmentSanity, Payload or headless WordPress wired to a modern front end — with an editing experience built around your team.Read
Other decisions people ask us about
Ready to Build Your Next Big Project?
Tell us what you are trying to grow. You will get a straight answer on whether we can help, and what it would cost, within one business day.