You're comparing Webflow and Framer because you want to stop waiting on developers for every landing page update. Both platforms promise that independence, but they deliver it differently. The wrong choice shows up six months later when your marketing team still can't ship without help.
This guide breaks down how each platform handles the things B2B teams actually care about: CMS capabilities, marketing autonomy, scalability, and long-term maintenance. We build on Webflow, so we'll be upfront about that bias while being honest about when Framer makes more sense.
One important note before we dive in: this comparison assumes you're working with a qualified agency or experienced developer for Webflow, or have strong in-house design talent for Framer. Both platforms can become maintenance nightmares if built without proper structure. Webflow's flexibility becomes chaos without component architecture. Framer's freeform approach becomes inconsistent without design discipline. The differences we're covering only appear when the site is built properly.
The honest truth about both platforms
Webflow's real strengths for B2B
Webflow is a visual web development platform that outputs clean, production-ready code. It sits between design tools like Figma and traditional code-based development. For B2B teams, the appeal is straightforward: with proper component architecture, your marketing team can own the site after launch.
The visual editor lets your marketing team build pages, update copy, and launch campaigns, all in one place. No tickets, no developer queue, no waiting. When you want to test a new headline or spin up a landing page for a campaign, you can do it the same day. This independence only works when the site is built with proper component structure and when your team receives adequate handoff training.
Webflow handles hosting, SSL certificates, CDN distribution, and security updates automatically. There's no server to manage, no patches to apply, and no hosting provider to coordinate with. For teams without dedicated IT resources, this removes a significant operational burden.
The platform includes a built-in content management system for blogs, case studies, resource libraries, and other dynamic content. Your content team can publish and update without touching the design layer or involving developers. The CMS is visual, so editors see exactly how content will appear on the live site.
Webflow limitations B2B teams should know
Advanced features like membership portals or custom applications often require development beyond Webflow's native capabilities. The platform excels at marketing websites, but it's not trying to be everything.
The visual editor is powerful but has a learning curve, especially for teams unfamiliar with web development concepts like the box model. Proper training during handoff mitigates this, but expect an initial investment.
Webflow doesn't offer one-click export of dynamic content. Leaving Webflow means rebuilding, not migrating. Your CMS content can transfer, but the site structure gets rebuilt from scratch.
Framer's real strengths for B2B
Framer started as a prototyping tool and evolved into a design-first website builder. Its strength lies in fluid animations and rapid visual iteration. Designers can publish polished pages quickly without deep technical setup.
For speed-to-first-launch, Framer often wins. Its templates and design-first approach can get a simple page live faster than Webflow. If you're testing positioning or need a campaign page tomorrow, Framer delivers.
Framer has superior animation capabilities. If fluid motion and micro-interactions are your priority, Framer makes implementation easier. The platform feels more like a design tool than a development environment, which appeals to teams with strong design backgrounds.
The learning curve is gentler initially, especially for designers already comfortable with tools like Figma. You can produce visually impressive results quickly without understanding web development fundamentals.
Framer limitations B2B teams should know
Framer's CMS is powerful and intuitive for visually-driven projects like portfolios or landing pages, but it's less robust for the content-heavy strategies most B2B companies eventually pursue. Extensive blog archives, sortable case study libraries, or complex resource centers are better suited to Webflow's CMS architecture.
The freeform design approach that feels liberating at launch can create maintenance headaches as the site scales. Without the structural constraints Webflow enforces, sites often become chaotic collections of one-off designs that nobody can maintain consistently.
Content changes often require designer involvement, even for simple updates. That's manageable for small teams with dedicated design resources. It becomes a bottleneck as teams grow and marketing wants independence.
Framer has no way of exporting the code and self-hosting the website. If you decide to leave the platform, you're rebuilding from scratch elsewhere.
In-depth breakdown per requirement
Ease of use and learning curve
Webflow requires more upfront investment to learn its box-model system. The visual editor maps to HTML and CSS logic, which means understanding web development concepts helps. However, with proper agency training and documentation, the learning curve isn't steep. Your team can quickly manage and update content after a thorough handoff.
That said, when you need new sections, components, or integrations, you're still dependent on a professional to implement them. Doing this yourself risks compromising the site's structure and scalability.
Framer feels faster initially, especially for designers. The interface resembles design tools more than development environments, so teams with Figma experience adapt quickly. You can produce impressive pages without understanding how websites actually work under the hood.
The trade-off emerges over time. Framer's freeform nature often creates ongoing dependency on design skills for every change. What feels like freedom at launch can feel like chaos six months later when non-designers need to make updates.
For marketing teams handling day-to-day website work after a proper handoff, Webflow offers more sustainable independence despite the steeper initial curve.
Design flexibility and customization
Framer prioritizes creative freedom. The canvas-based approach lets designers place elements anywhere, create complex animations, and build pages that feel more like art than structured systems. For single high-impact pages where visual flair matters most, this flexibility is genuinely valuable.
Webflow's structured approach provides constraints that actually benefit B2B teams over time. Those constraints enforce brand consistency across dozens of pages. Without them, sites often become inconsistent as different team members make changes without guardrails.
With a well-built Webflow site, marketing can create landing pages by combining pre-designed components. Copy, images, and sections can be updated and published without developers. Only new component designs need agency support. Campaign work stays in-house.
For A/B testing and quick iterations, Webflow's component library speeds things up. Marketers can duplicate a page and publish a variant fast. In Framer, similar changes typically need designer involvement.
Performance and speed
Both platforms can produce fast websites when built correctly, with similar page loading speeds. The difference lies in code quality and optimization approach.
Webflow outputs clean, semantic code and includes built-in optimization: automatic image compression to WebP or AVIF, minified JavaScript and CSS, and global CDN distribution. No additional configuration required. The platform provides performance audits and recommendations.
Framer produces less clean code than Webflow, but still handles hosting and basic optimization automatically. You won't be debugging caching plugins or optimizing server configurations on either platform.
Both platforms remove the performance optimization burden that comes with self-hosted solutions. For most B2B websites built properly, you'll see comparable real-world performance from either platform.
SEO capabilities
Both platforms can rank well in search engines when configured properly. The difference is depth and flexibility.
Webflow offers deeper, more flexible control and scalability for content-heavy sites, with built-in features for programmatic SEO and a robust CMS. Advanced redirect management, a schema markup generator, detailed sitemap configuration, and native controls for canonical URLs and robots directives give B2B teams serious about organic traffic the tools they need.
Framer provides strong foundational SEO for design-focused projects, focusing on fast performance and essential tools. It supports schema markup and you can populate it with variables, though it lacks a schema markup generator like Webflow offers. For advanced SEO needs, Framer requires more manual effort or custom coding.
CMS and content management
This is where Webflow and Framer diverge for B2B use cases.
Webflow's CMS is more robust and scalable for content-heavy sites. It handles complex content structures: blogs with multiple authors and categories, case study libraries with filtering, resource centers with tags and search, comparison pages, and team directories. Content teams can publish and update without touching design or involving developers. The CMS supports relational content, linking authors to posts, categories to resources, which enables sophisticated content architectures.
Framer offers a powerful, intuitive CMS for visually-driven projects like portfolios or landing pages. It supports content relationships through CMS collection references. The CMS works well for simpler content operations but isn't designed for the same scale of content management as Webflow.
Both platforms have similar CMS limits, but Webflow gives you more capacity at comparable price points.
Integration and marketing stack
Webflow has significantly more integration options. The platform offers 270+ native integrations, 300+ additional integrations through the Webflow Marketplace, and another thousand or so when connected to Zapier.
Common B2B integrations work seamlessly: HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive, Mailchimp, Google Analytics, and marketing automation platforms. Form submissions can flow directly into your CRM with native app support.
Framer doesn't have a library of built-in native integrations. Connection to external tools is possible through Zapier or basic webhook functionality, which requires more setup and technical knowledge.
For B2B teams with established marketing stacks, Webflow's integration depth is a significant advantage. You're more likely to find native support for your specific tools rather than building workarounds.
Pricing and total cost of ownership
Webflow pricing
Webflow charges monthly or annual fees based on features and traffic. Most B2B companies are satisfied with the CMS or Business plan, ranging from approximately €20-35/month billed annually.
Development costs for a Webflow website depend on scope, but standard B2B websites typically range from €5,000-15,000 when built by a qualified agency.
Ongoing costs are minimal. No plugins need updating, no themes need patching, no compatibility conflicts to resolve. You only involve an agency when you need new component designs or functionality. An ongoing retainer isn't necessary if you're not actively expanding the site's capabilities.
Framer pricing
Framer charges per-site with different feature tiers:
- Free: Includes watermark
- Basic (€15/month): For personal projects, max 30 pages, 1 CMS collection, 1,000 CMS items, no redirects
- Pro (€45/month): Max 150 pages, 10 CMS collections, 2,500 CMS items, redirects included
- Scale (€100/month): Max 300 pages, 20 CMS collections, 10,000 CMS items, redirects included
Webflow is slightly cheaper per month while giving you more CMS collections and items at comparable tiers.
Development costs for initial builds are similar to Webflow, ranging from €5,000-15,000 depending on scope and complexity.
Three-year total cost comparison
The three-year total cost is roughly comparable between platforms. Webflow has lower platform fees but both have minimal ongoing maintenance costs. The real cost difference comes from how much designer or developer time you need for updates, which depends on build quality and team capabilities.
Scalability and growth
This is where B2B scale-ups feel the friction most acutely. A site that works at ten pages can become unwieldy at fifty.
Webflow's component-based system and CMS are designed to scale gracefully. Add pages, create new content types, expand your resource library. The structure holds. Marketing teams can create new pages by combining existing components without compromising consistency.
Large Framer sites can become difficult to maintain consistently. The freeform approach that enables creative freedom also enables inconsistency. Without structural constraints, different team members create different solutions to the same problems.
For traffic scaling, both platforms handle spikes automatically through their managed hosting infrastructure.
For content scaling, Webflow's CMS offers more capacity at mid-tier pricing. If you're building a massive resource library or running programmatic SEO at scale, Webflow is better equipped.
For team scaling, Webflow's visual editor is easier to onboard new marketers to since they can work within established component systems. Framer requires design skills for most updates, limiting who on your team can contribute.
Team workflow and collaboration
Webflow is built for collaboration between technical and non-technical teams. Its Build mode lets marketing update content directly on the live site without risking the design layer. Robust user permissions control who can edit what. Built-in staging environments support review workflows before publishing.
Content and design stay cleanly separated. Writers can update blog posts while designers work on new components without conflicts.
Framer has collaboration features with three roles: Owner (can manage everything), Editor (can make changes to the project), and Viewer (can only look at the project). Framer also offers a staging environment.
However, Framer's collaboration is more design-centric. The platform excels when designers collaborate with other designers. Content changes often require designer involvement, which creates bottlenecks as teams grow and marketing wants more autonomy.
For B2B teams where marketing needs to move fast on campaigns while developers focus on larger initiatives, Webflow's separation of concerns is a significant advantage.
Which platform fits your situation?
"We have a growing content operation and want marketing to own the site."
Webflow. The CMS handles complex content structures, and with proper component architecture, your marketing team publishes independently. You'll need agency support for structural changes, but day-to-day content work stays in-house.
"We're early-stage and testing positioning quickly."
Framer. Get something live fast, learn from market response, iterate. The speed advantage matters when you're still validating core messaging. You can always rebuild on Webflow later when you've found product-market fit.
"We have strong in-house designers and want maximum creative freedom."
Framer. Your design team can execute their vision without structural constraints. Just ensure they're building with some consistency in mind for when the site needs to scale.
"We want predictable costs and minimal ongoing maintenance."
Webflow. No designer dependency for content updates, no unexpected costs. Your agency relationship shifts from ongoing maintenance to growth-focused projects.
"We're building a single landing page or campaign microsite."
Either works, but Framer may get you there faster. For isolated pages that won't require ongoing CMS updates, Framer's speed advantage matters more than Webflow's structural benefits.
"We need our marketing team to launch campaigns without waiting on anyone."
Webflow. With proper training and component libraries, marketers can build and publish landing pages same-day. Framer typically keeps marketing dependent on design resources.
What about migration from Framer to Webflow?
Migration from Framer to Webflow is a rebuild, not a simple transfer. Your content moves over, but the site needs to be rebuilt from scratch in Webflow. This is an opportunity to rethink structure and design rather than just replicating what you had.
Migration timeline and what to expect
Most B2B website migrations take one to two months from kickoff to launch, depending on site complexity. The process includes content export, design and development in Webflow, redirect setup, testing, and team training. Simpler sites move faster; sites with extensive content take longer.
The key technical shift is moving from Framer's frame-based system to Webflow's component-based system. You'll also need to account for differences in how each platform structures CMS content.
Common migration challenges and how to avoid them
- Rebuilding animations is the biggest challenge. Framer's animation capabilities are superior and more intuitive. Recreating complex Framer animations in Webflow requires either native interactions (which have limitations) or custom code. Budget extra time and potentially extra development cost for animation work.
- URL redirects require careful planning. Map old URLs to your new structure to preserve SEO value and avoid broken links. Missing redirects can hurt your search rankings.
- Design translation takes interpretation. Framer's freeform designs need to be systematized into Webflow's component structure. This is an opportunity to create consistency, not a limitation.
- Content restructuring may be needed. If your Framer CMS was limited, you'll likely want to expand your content architecture when moving to Webflow.
- Team training should happen before launch. Editors learn the new platform while the old site remains live, reducing pressure and allowing time for questions.
When to stay put
Migration isn't worth the effort if your current Framer site is serving you well. If you have simple content needs that Framer handles adequately, a design-led team comfortable with the current workflow, and no major pain points with scale or marketing autonomy, then optimizing your current setup makes more sense than rebuilding.
Migration makes sense when the operational model needs to change, when marketing needs independence, content operations are growing, or maintenance is becoming unsustainable.
Webflow vs. Framer: Our recommendation for B2B websites
Platform choice matters less than the quality of the website built on that platform. A well-built Framer site will outperform a sloppy Webflow site for its intended purpose.
For most B2B scale-ups with growing content operations, complex sales processes, and marketing teams that want independence, Webflow is the stronger long-term foundation. The CMS depth, structural consistency, and marketing autonomy align with how B2B websites actually need to operate.
Framer remains the right choice for design-led teams building high-impact single pages, early-stage companies testing positioning, or situations where visual polish matters more than content scalability. That's not a consolation prize. It's a genuine fit for specific situations.
The most important decision isn't Webflow versus Framer. It's ensuring whoever builds your site, on either platform, creates something structured, maintainable, and aligned with how your team actually works. A well-structured site on either platform serves you for years. A sloppy build on either becomes a liability.