The question comes up with almost every new site: build it on WordPress, which the whole world knows, or reach for something more modern like Astro? The answer isn’t “one is better.” Each tool wins in a different place. Let’s go through exactly where, so you decide based on reality instead of whatever happens to be in fashion.

What we’re actually comparing

WordPress is a classic CMS with a database. The page is assembled on the server on every request (or cached), the admin runs in the browser, and around it all sits an ecosystem of tens of thousands of plugins and themes.

Astro is a modern generator that turns your content into pre-built static HTML. No database, no PHP running on every request. It ships JavaScript to the browser only where you actually need it. Content typically lives in Markdown or in a connected CMS (we’re fond of Keystatic, which saves data straight into your repository).

Speed

This is where the gap is biggest and hardest to beat. Astro serves static HTML from a CDN. There’s nothing to compute, nothing to wait for. Sites routinely load in under a second and sail through Core Web Vitals (the metrics Google uses to score speed) almost on their own.

WordPress can be fast too, but you have to help it along: a caching plugin, decent hosting, image optimization, and keeping an eye on everything your plugins decide to load. Without that care it easily turns into a slow giant. It can be done. It just isn’t free, and it doesn’t hold up on its own.

Security and maintenance

A static site has no database and no login admin exposed to the internet. So there’s essentially nowhere to attack. Once deployed, an Astro site happily sits for months without a single touch and nothing breaks.

WordPress is the most widespread CMS in the world, which also makes it a popular target. The core, plugins, and themes all need regular updates. Skip a few months and you’re asking for trouble. It’s not insurmountable, but it’s work that never ends, and you’re usually paying someone to do it.

Editing for non-devs

This is where WordPress traditionally won, and for many content teams it still does. People know it, the Gutenberg editor is well established, and an editor can run the site without a developer hovering over them.

Astro long had a reputation as a “developer tool.” That’s no longer true. Connect a git-based CMS like Keystatic or Decap and your editor gets a normal in-browser editor: click, type, save. The difference is that the site’s structure is defined up front, so nobody accidentally wrecks the layout with ten plugins. For a company site that’s an advantage. For a site where articles and landing pages pile up daily and everyone wants a different block, WordPress’s freedom is more comfortable.

Cost over time

The build cost is usually comparable for both. The difference shows up afterward.

Astro: hosting is often free or a couple of dollars (static files on a CDN). No plugin licenses, minimal maintenance. The main cost is the initial development.
WordPress: on top of that, paid hosting that handles PHP and a database, often premium plugins with annual subscriptions, and ongoing maintenance (updates, backups, the occasional fix after a plugin breaks).

Over a two-year horizon, a well-built Astro site almost always comes out cheaper to run. With WordPress you pay for flexibility that not every site actually uses.

When WordPress wins

Let’s be fair. WordPress is the right call when you:

have a content team that’s used to it and publishes daily
need features out of the box: membership areas, forums, a more complex WooCommerce shop, booking systems
want a non-technical person to spin up new page types and sections themselves, without a developer
are dealing with a high volume of content with editorial workflow, categories, and multiple authors

In those cases the mature ecosystem saves you more than the maintenance costs you.

When Astro wins

We recommend Astro for most marketing and company sites, because that’s where its strengths line up exactly with the need:

presentation and marketing sites, where speed and first impression decide
landing pages and campaign pages that have to be lightning fast
sites meant to run for years with minimal maintenance and no security scares
projects where you want full control over the code and no vendor lock-in

At FRGTN we go with Astro for marketing sites almost every time. The reason is simple: you get a fast, secure site that won’t nag you for years, and you own absolutely everything (code, content, domain, accounts). No surprise invoice from a plugin that decided to raise its price.

How to decide

Ask yourself one question: how often, and who, will change the content?

If the site mostly presents and gets updated now and then, go with Astro. It’ll be faster, cheaper to run, and basically maintenance-free. If you have a team that lives in the content and needs the freedom to assemble anything themselves, WordPress makes sense and there’s no point fighting it.

The worst choice is picking a tool just because “that’s what everyone does.” Choose based on how the site will actually run. And if you’re not sure, get in touch. We’ll tell you straight what makes sense, even if it turns out to be the thing we don’t usually do.