Most Webflow sites should stay on Webflow.

I am a Webflow Professional Partner and this is the page I would want to read first. It is written so that somebody who decides to stay has got their money's worth from it.

The actual trade

You are trading visual editing for control.

That is the whole decision, and most of the arguments around it are proxies for it. Webflow gives a non-technical person the ability to change how a page looks without involving anybody. Astro gives your team ownership of the codebase, the build and everything that happens in it. Both are real. Which one you should want depends on who does the work.

Be careful with the performance argument in particular. Astro ships very little JavaScript by default, and that is a genuine architectural difference, but a heavy Webflow site is usually heavy because of what was added to it. Moving platforms to fix that is an expensive way to delete some scripts.

Signals

Read both columns.

Stay on Webflow when

Marketers change layouts visually, and often. This is the one thing Astro genuinely does not give back.
CMS needs are modest: a blog, some case studies, fields that do not reference each other much.
Engineering does not want to own another codebase, and would not review the pull requests.
The site works. Performance is fine, publishing is fine, nobody is blocked.
There is little custom code, and what exists is not fighting the platform.
The marketing site has no real relationship with the product or its data.

Consider moving when

The custom code footprint has grown to the point where Webflow is hosting a small application.
Engineering is already involved in the marketing site most weeks, without wanting to be.
The content model needs relationships, validation or structures the CMS resists.
You want Git, code review, branches and a deploy history for the site.
Integrations are numerous or bespoke enough that the platform is in the way.
The marketing site needs to share components, data or infrastructure with the product.
Owning the front end matters to you for reasons that survive a change of vendor.

None of the right-hand signals mean you should migrate on their own. They mean the question is worth asking properly. A site can show three of them and still be better off where it is.

The options nobody asks about

Often the answer is neither.

Fix the implementation instead

A slow Webflow site is usually a slow implementation rather than a slow platform. Unused libraries, oversized images and a dozen third-party scripts are cheaper to fix than to migrate away from, and the fix works on Tuesday rather than next quarter.
Move the CMS, keep the site

If the pain is content modeling rather than the front end, connecting a headless CMS to the existing site solves it without a rebuild.
Split the site

Documentation, an application or a resource library can move to a codebase while the marketing pages stay where the marketers can reach them. Not every site has to make one decision.

If you are still unsure

Have the site looked at before deciding.

The assessment reports what is actually on your site: the platform, the third-party scripts, the custom code, the URL surface and what a rebuild would involve. It is the same look I take before quoting, and it frequently ends in "stay where you are", which is a fine outcome and costs you nothing.

If the answer turns out to be yes, what the migration involves is written out in full.

Reach out and see if we are a good fit.

Start a project

Currently booking two to four weeks out.