For most B2B marketing websites, Webflow is the right choice: marketers can edit it without a developer, and it performs well when built carefully. Astro fits content-heavy sites where you want very small pages and full control over the output. Next.js fits sites that are close to a web application, with logged-in areas, heavy personalisation or shared code with a product. The decision usually comes down to who edits the site and how complex the logic is.
How do you choose between Webflow, Astro and Next.js?
Ask four questions before you compare features.
- Who will change the site every week? If the answer is marketers without a developer, that points to Webflow.
- How many pages and how much structured data do you have? Hundreds of generated pages from a database favour code.
- Does the site share logic, accounts or components with your product? That favours Next.js.
- What is the budget for the first build and for the next two years? Code gives you more control and also more to maintain.
We build in all three, and we are a certified Webflow partner, so we have no reason to push anyone toward code that does not need it. We also have no reason to push you away from it when it fits. Our own site runs on Astro, and we describe what that looked like in how we built the 90five website in Astro.
What is Webflow best at?
Webflow is a visual builder that outputs clean HTML and CSS, comes with hosting, a CMS, forms and a published site in one place. Its strengths for a marketing team are practical:
- Editors can change copy, swap images and publish CMS items without a deployment.
- Designers can build layouts, interactions and responsive behaviour without writing code.
- Hosting, SSL, a sitemap, redirects and basic SEO fields are included.
- A well-built Webflow site can score high on Core Web Vitals.
Its limits show up when logic gets complicated. Large CMS structures, complex filtering, user accounts and deep integrations are possible but awkward. You also work inside the platform's rules for URLs, output and what custom code can touch.
If this is your situation, start with our Webflow agency page. If you are leaving another platform, Webflow vs WordPress in 2026 covers that comparison.
What is Astro best at?
Astro is a web framework built for content sites. It renders pages to HTML at build time and sends no JavaScript to the browser unless you ask for it. You write components, and the output is plain pages.
The strengths:
- Very small pages by default, which helps speed and Core Web Vitals.
- Full control over markup, metadata and structured data.
- Content from files or a headless CMS, with pages generated from structured data.
- Interactive pieces only where you need them, using the framework of your choice.
The costs:
- A developer has to make layout and design changes.
- You build or buy what Webflow includes: forms, redirects handling, previews, image handling and an editor experience.
- A headless CMS adds a second system to learn and pay for.
Astro suits a B2B site with a lot of content, a team that includes developers, and a need for tight control. We chose it for our own site, where the editors also write code.
What is Next.js best at?
Next.js is a React framework. It can render pages statically, on the server or in the browser, and it can host API routes next to the pages. That flexibility is the point.
The strengths:
- Sites that share components, data or authentication with a product built in React.
- Personalised or logged-in experiences.
- Complex data fetching and server logic next to the pages.
- A large ecosystem and many developers who know it.
The costs:
- More moving parts than a content site needs, and more JavaScript by default than Astro sends.
- Upgrades, hosting choices and caching rules to understand.
- Marketing teams depend on developers for most changes unless a CMS is added.
Choose Next.js when the website is part of a product surface. If it is only a brochure with a blog, it is often more machinery than the job requires.
How do they compare side by side?
The list below summarises how we see the three for a B2B marketing site. It is a judgement, not a benchmark.
Webflow
- Editing: visual editor, no developer needed for content and most layout.
- Output: clean HTML and CSS, performance depends on how it is built.
- Hosting and CMS: included.
- Best for: marketing sites run by marketers.
- Watch out for: complex logic, very large content structures.
Astro
- Editing: code for layout, a headless CMS or files for content.
- Output: static HTML with minimal JavaScript.
- Hosting and CMS: you choose them.
- Best for: content-heavy sites with developer support and a need for control.
- Watch out for: editors who expect a visual builder.
Next.js
- Editing: code for layout, a headless CMS for content.
- Output: static or server rendered React, more JavaScript.
- Hosting and CMS: you choose them.
- Best for: sites tied to a product, accounts or heavy personalisation.
- Watch out for: complexity you do not need.
What about SEO?
All three can rank. Search engines read HTML, and each of these tools can produce good HTML with correct titles, headings, canonicals and structured data. Differences show up in effort. In Webflow, the SEO fields are there, and you configure them. In Astro and Next.js, you build them, which gives you control and also lets you forget things. For what to check in any tool, see our Webflow SEO checklist for B2B websites.
Speed matters for rankings and for conversion, but it is not a reason to pick a framework alone. A carefully built Webflow site beats a careless Astro site.
How much does each option cost?
Cost follows scope more than tool. Templates, CMS structure, content, integrations, migration and SEO work drive the price whichever tool you use. At 90five, websites start at $20k, and custom Astro or Next.js websites start at $20k as well. We explain the drivers in What does a Webflow website cost?. Maintenance differs: a code site needs developer time for changes, and a Webflow site lets your team do more itself.
A short decision guide
- Choose Webflow if marketers own the site, the design matters most and the logic is simple.
- Choose Astro if the site is content heavy, you have developer support and you want the smallest possible pages.
- Choose Next.js if the site shares code or accounts with a product, or needs personalisation.
- Choose a mix if it helps: Webflow for the marketing site, and a code-based app on a subdomain for the product.
If you are still unsure, describe your team and your plans to us. Our custom website development service covers Astro and Next.js, and we will say so plainly when Webflow is the better fit.
FAQ
Is Astro better than Webflow?
Neither is better in general. Astro gives you smaller pages and full control, and needs developers for changes. Webflow gives your team a visual editor and hosting, and has limits on complex logic. The right one depends on who edits the site.
Is Astro better than Next.js for a marketing site?
For content sites, often yes, because it ships less JavaScript and has less to maintain. Next.js is the better choice when the site is closely tied to a product or needs accounts and personalisation.
Can I switch from Webflow to Astro later?
Yes. It is a migration like any other: inventory your URLs, keep them stable, redirect what changes and carry over your metadata and structured data. Content in the Webflow CMS can be exported and moved to a new CMS.
Which is cheapest to maintain?
Webflow is usually the lowest maintenance for a marketing team, because the platform handles hosting and updates and non-developers can edit. Code sites cost developer time, though they can be cheap to host.
Do you build in all three?
Yes. We are a certified Webflow partner and we also build Astro and Next.js websites. We recommend the tool that fits the team and the plan.