Webflow vs Framer: SEO Features, Scale & Growth in 2025

When evaluating website builders in 2025, SEO should be one of the first filters. The platform has to deliver on the basics - clean code, editable meta fields, responsive images, and crawlability, but also support advanced needs like structured data, redirects, and localization. 

The choice is not only about technical features, but about business outcomes. A platform that falls short on SEO creates hidden costs: slower marketing velocity, higher content operations overhead, and expensive migrations down the road. Getting SEO right at the infrastructure level saves money and drives growth. 

The two platforms most often compared today are Webflow and Framer. Both are growing quickly, both ship with baseline SEO features, but their technical depth is not the same. This article breaks down the differences that matter for search performance and long-term scalability. 

Company Overviews 

Webflow 

Webflow was founded in 2013 in San Francisco by Vlad Magdalin, Sergie Magdalin, and Bryant Chou. Since then, it has grown into one of the leading no-code platforms for professional websites. The company has raised about $335 million, with its Series C in 2022 valuing it at US $4 billion. Today, more than 3.5 million designers and teams use Webflow worldwide, with over 100,000 paying customers across nearly 190 countries. 

The platform powers more than 600 million active websites and has reported more than 10 billion monthly visits across hosted projects. 

With a team of over 1,000 employees, Webflow positions itself as a full-stack platform: a visual designer, CMS, hosting, and enterprise-level SEO controls in one system. Its maturity, ecosystem, and enterprise focus make it especially appealing to businesses where the website is not just a design asset, but a core growth engine. 

Framer 

Framer was founded in 2015 by Koen Bok and Jorn van Dijk, starting as a prototyping tool before pivoting into a website builder. Headquartered in Amsterdam with offices in San Francisco and Barcelona, the company has expanded quickly in recent years. 

In August 2025, Framer raised $100 million in Series D funding at a US $2 billion valuation. Today, it reports more than 500,000 monthly active users and “hundreds of thousands” of live websites. 

Framer’s customer base includes startups, design-driven companies, and marketing teams, with brands like Scale AI, Perplexity, Miro, and Bilt. The company reached profitability in 2025 with about US $50 million in annual recurring revenue. 

Its positioning is clear: a design-first website builder built for speed, polish, and collaboration. With a built-in CMS, analytics, enterprise security, A/B testing, and real-time editing, Framer markets itself as a platform where companies can manage their full web presence without a dedicated engineering team. Its agility and design-centric DNA make it attractive to teams that prioritize storytelling and branding over heavy SEO-driven scale. 

General comparison between the products 

Webflow and Framer are both no-code website builders, but they’re optimized for different priorities. 

Webflow is infrastructure-first. It combines design, CMS, hosting, and SEO controls into one platform. While the learning curve is steeper, it’s designed for companies that need scalability, structured content models, and long-term maintainability. For organizations where the website is a core growth channel, Webflow emphasizes stability and control. 

Framer is design-first. Evolving from a prototyping tool, it’s tailored for teams that want speed, polish, and visually rich, interactive websites. Its biggest strengths are rapid iteration and creative freedom, making it well-suited for marketing sites, product storytelling, and campaigns. 

From an SEO perspective, both platforms check the basic boxes. The difference comes in depth. Framer is usually “good enough” for smaller or design-driven projects, but Webflow provides more flexibility and control when organic search is a primary growth driver. For teams planning to scale content operations or expand internationally, Webflow’s infrastructure advantage becomes more apparent. 

Webflow's SEO abilities 

Webflow is often seen as one of the strongest no-code platforms for search optimization. Its built-in controls and CMS flexibility make it a fit for content-heavy and enterprise projects. Still, teams should be aware of a few limitations when planning large-scale SEO. 

Pros 

1. Comprehensive SEO controls 

Meta titles, descriptions, canonical tags, robots.txt, XML sitemaps, alt text, custom slugs, and 301 redirects are all built in. Unlike WordPress, no plugins are required to cover the fundamentals. 

2. Clean code and strong performance 

Webflow outputs lean HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, then serves it via a global CDN. This helps projects meet Core Web Vitals benchmarks while maintaining crawlability. 

3. Responsive and mobile-first by default 

Every site is responsive from the start, reducing friction with usability and accessibility requirements. 

4. Flexible CMS for structured content 

Webflow’s CMS allows collections, reference fields, and nested lists, making it possible to model complex content structures. This flexibility supports scalable SEO strategies such as blogs, marketplaces, or documentation hubs. 

5. Low maintenance and secure hosting 

SSL, backups, and DDoS protection are included with hosting. The lack of reliance on plugins reduces maintenance risks compared to other platforms. 

6. Enterprise-grade global infrastructure 

With CDN delivery through providers like Fastly and CloudFront, Webflow sites perform consistently across international markets. 

Cons 

1. Steep learning curve for advanced setups 

Webflow covers the fundamentals, but features like structured data, dynamic canonicals, or large-scale CMS templates require technical knowledge. Non-technical teams may struggle to configure SEO efficiently without developer support. 

2. Hard limits on CMS collection items and relationships 

Webflow’s standard CMS (non-Enterprise plans) typically caps total collection items of ~10,000 collection items across dynamic content for standard plans. 

3. Redirect management overhead 

Webflow supports regex and wildcard redirects, which is powerful for migrations. But managing thousands of rules through the UI can be slow, and bulk/API-based management is limited. 

4. Performance risks from heavy design choices 

Overusing animations, large images, or complex interactions can slow down Webflow projects. Without careful optimization, Core Web Vitals may suffer. 

5. Limited server control 

Unlike open-source or headless stacks, Webflow doesn’t allow tuning server behavior (advanced caching, edge rules, SSR adjustments). For most sites this isn’t an issue, but enterprise SEO teams sometimes need this level of control.

Framer for SEO 

Framer has grown from a prototyping tool into a capable website builder, steadily adding SEO features. It works well for smaller projects, design-driven teams, and marketing sites that prioritize polish. But when it comes to SEO scale and advanced control, its limitations are clear. 

Pros 

1. Fast, static performance baseline 

Sites export to static HTML/JS and run on a global CDN. Lightweight builds typically achieve strong Core Web Vitals without extra configuration. 

2. Baseline SEO features included 

Page titles, descriptions, alt text, canonical tags, XML sitemaps, and Open Graph tags are all supported natively. For smaller sites, this covers essential requirements. 

3. Built-in, GDPR-compliant analytics 

Framer includes lightweight analytics based on GA4, reducing reliance on third-party scripts that can slow sites down. 

4. Quick setup and lower entry costs 

Launching a site is faster than on Webflow. For portfolios, landing pages, or small startup sites, Framer offers lower-cost plans and a smoother onboarding curve. 

Cons 

1. Shallow CMS architecture 

Framer’s CMS lacks nested collection lists and advanced relational models. Content-heavy sites, such as blogs, marketplaces, or knowledge hubs, hit limitations quickly. 

2. Scaling constraints 

While Framer claims support for up to 10,000 pages, managing complex structures at that level is inefficient. Limited export options make migrations harder for SEO-driven projects. 

3. Restricted SEO controls 

Custom robots.txt rules, dynamic canonicals, or granular hreflang management are not built in. Teams often need manual coding for features Webflow provides natively. 

4. No dedicated content editing environment 

Unlike Webflow’s Editor mode, Framer requires teams to edit content inside the design canvas. This slows down marketing workflows and complicates SEO operations. 

5. Localization gaps 

Framer supports multiple locales and hreflang tags but does not yet allow translated slugs. This weakens international SEO because URLs remain in the source language. 

6. Risk from animation-heavy builds 

Framer encourages visually polished sites with animations and interactive components. While impressive for branding, this can inflate JavaScript payloads and hurt Core Web Vitals on more complex sites.

Technical SEO Feature Comparison 

Both Webflow and Framer have matured into capable no-code platforms, but when looking at their technical SEO capabilities side by side, the differences are substantial. Below is a breakdown across the most important SEO dimensions. 

Hosting & Performance 

Webflow publishes pre-rendered static HTML through a dual CDN stack (CloudFront + Fastly). It automatically generates responsive image variants and, since July 2024, supports AVIF and WebP conversion. These optimizations, paired with globally distributed delivery, allow Webflow  sites to consistently hit Core Web Vitals benchmarks like LCP and CLS, even at enterprise scale. 

Framer also delivers static HTML/JS via an edge CDN, with built-in image optimization and local font hosting. For lightweight marketing or portfolio sites, performance is strong. However, Framer projects that lean heavily on animations or prototype-like components introduce JavaScript overhead, which can destabilize CLS and INP as complexity grows. 

Both tools deliver fast sites out of the box, but Webflow’s hosting stack is more battle-tested at scale, while Framer’s reliance on animations introduces risk as page counts increase. 

Indexing & Crawlability 

Webflow offers granular control over indexation. Every page and CMS template supports meta titles, descriptions, and dynamic variables. Canonicals can be set globally or at the page level, and CMS templates allow binding canonicals directly to fields. Robots.txt is fully customizable, and sitemaps are auto-generated with hreflang annotations when localization is active. 

Framer supports editable titles, descriptions, and Open Graph tags, with automatic sitemap and robots.txt generation. Canonical tags default to self-referencing, and while custom canonicals can be added manually, there’s no GUI for dynamic CMS canonicals. Robots.txt and sitemap files cannot be manually configured. 

Both platforms cover the basics, but Webflow clearly is clearly ahead in flexibility, especially for large content inventories, migrations, or international SEO. 

Structured Data (Schema) 

Webflow allows JSON-LD schema injection at multiple levels: site-wide <head> , individual page <head> , and CMS template <head> with field bindings. This lets you automate structured data for hundreds or thousands of entries (articles, products, directories) at scale. 

Framer supports schema injection with its {{ }} variable syntax in CMS templates, enabling dynamic JSON-LD generation. However, the workflow is more manual, with no presets or built in validation tools. Teams must maintain schema snippets themselves, which increases risk on larger builds. 

Both platforms technically support schema, but Webflow’s injection points and CMS binding workflow make it easier to manage enterprise-grade structured data

CMS Architecture & Scalability 

Webflow has one of the most advanced no-code CMS offerings. Since May 2025, it supports up to two nested collection lists per page (each limited to 10 items). Pages can include up to 20 collection lists, and collections allow 10 reference or multi-reference fields. While official documentation doesn’t confirm the total field cap, community sources cite ~60 fields per collection. These limits support complex content graphs, such as multilingual blogs, marketplaces, or SaaS knowledge hubs, while keeping structures SEO-friendly. 

Framer added collection references in October 2024, improving its CMS. However, it still does not allow true nested collection lists. Many-to-many relationships require workarounds, and advanced SEO automation relies heavily on manual coding. In practice, Framer’s CMS is suited to small blogs or static marketing content, not enterprise content hubs. 

Webflow is mature and scalable for structured SEO architectures; Framer remains limited. 

Internationalization 

Webflow launched Localization in 2023 and has since expanded it. It supports subdirectory based routing (/de/, /fr/), localized SEO fields, hreflang in HTML and sitemaps, and translated slugs per locale. This allows SEO-ready multi-language rollouts across dozens of markets. 

Framer supports over 500 locales, subdirectories, and hreflang tags. However, as of mid-2025, it does not allow slug translation. Titles and meta can be localized, but URLs remain in the source language, a significant drawback for international SEO. 

Both platforms handle multi-language basics, but Webflow’s translated slug support makes it far more effective for global SEO.

Redirects & Migrations 

Webflow includes an advanced redirect manager with wildcard patterns and regex-like capture groups. This makes it possible to migrate hundreds or thousands of URLs while preserving SEO value via 301s. 

Framer allows manual redirects but only on a one-to-one basis. It has no wildcard or bulk migration support, making it impractical for larger site moves. 

Webflow is enterprise-ready for migrations; Framer is not. 

Looking across hosting, indexing, schema, CMS depth, localization, and redirects, the pattern is consistent: Webflow offers more flexibility, scalability, and enterprise-grade SEO infrastructure. Framer delivers solid performance for smaller, design-driven sites but lacks the advanced controls needed for long-term, content-heavy SEO strategies. For teams where organic search is central to growth, Webflow stands out as the stronger platform. 

Which one wins for SEO? 

Both Webflow and Framer have evolved rapidly. Yet when viewed through the lens of serious, long-term organic growth, the gap between them is clear. 

Where Both Platforms Deliver:

• Fast hosting & CDN 
• Auto-generated sitemaps & robots.txt 
• Responsive images, WebP support 
• Strong Core Web Vitals for small–mid sites 
• Page-level SEO fields 
• JSON-LD schema injection 

Where Framer Falls Short:

1. CMS depth: lacks nested Collection Lists, struggles with complex relational models
2. Redirects: no wildcard/regex patterns 
3. Localization: no slug translation as of 2025 
4. Scalability risk: JS-heavy sites prone to CWV issues 

Where Webflow Excels:

1. CMS architecture: nested lists, 10 reference fields, ~60 fields per Collection (community reports) 
2. Redirect flexibility: wildcard & variable patterns 
3. Localization: translated slugs, hreflang, full i18n stack 
4. Indexing controls: robots.txt, canonicals, page/CMS-level SEO fields 
5. Performance at scale: enterprise-grade CDN + static output

The bigger picture 

When comparing Webflow and Framer, the first question shouldn’t be “which has better SEO?” The more useful question is: who are these platforms built for, and does that match your business model today and tomorrow? 

Who Webflow is built for 

Types of companies / stages 

Webflow is best suited for mature, marketing-driven businesses where the website is a core growth engine. SaaS and fintech companies, as well as enterprises in finance, healthcare, and consumer industries, often fall into this category. These organizations typically need hundreds or thousands of pages, structured CMS architectures, and SEO performance that scales reliably. 

Industries & use cases 

SaaS and fintech companies scaling marketing sites, blogs, and knowledge hubs Enterprises managing rebrands or domain migrations where SEO stability is mission-critical Marketplaces and directories requiring robust CMS structures with thousands of interlinked pages 

Examples 

DocuSign: After migrating to Webflow, saw a 1,170% YoY increase in traffic and 4× faster speed-to-market during its rebrand. 

Nursa: Migrated 40,000 pages in under three weeks, achieving a 70% performance improvement. 

Orangetheory Fitness: Reported $6M in annual savings, 6× faster delivery, and 4× better performance post-migration. 

Who Framer Is Meant For 

Types of companies / stages 

Framer is best suited for early-stage startups, small teams, and design-first companies. It shines when the priority is a visually polished site with animations and storytelling elements, rather than SEO-driven content scale. 

Industries & use cases 

Startups and creative studios launching brand-focused websites or microsites Teams prioritizing design polish and interactivity over SEO depth 

Marketing teams creating campaign surfaces, help centers, or changelogs without heavy dev support

Examples 

Perplexity: Uses Framer for secondary wesite pages like careers, security, help center, and its non-complex subproduct websites such as Sonar.

Miro: Leveraged Framer for product pages, campaign pages and experiments, focusing on design speed. 

Zapier: Built and launched its new brand guidelines site in just over a week using Framer. The move transformed static documents into an engaging, interactive storytelling format, while giving the design team autonomy and reducing engineering dependency. 

Paste: Migrated its full website - including homepage, blog, and help center, from a custom stack (Next.js, React, GSAP, Sanity) to Framer. The switch allowed the design team to handle updates without developers, improving agility and reducing technical overhead. 

Conclusion 

Both Webflow and Framer can deliver modern, SEO-ready websites, but they’re built with different priorities in mind. 

Framer is a design-first tool: it shines for portfolios, interactive landing pages, or early-stage startups where visual polish matters more than content volume. 

Webflow, by contrast, is a full-fledged platform built for content-rich, scalable websites, making it the stronger choice for SEO-driven projects. 

Where Webflow pulls ahead is in its depth of control and scalability. It offers fine-grained SEO settings, a flexible CMS for content marketing, and proven infrastructure for speed, reliability, and security. None of this means Framer can’t rank - you can absolutely build a fast, optimized site in Framer for smaller use cases. But when you start planning for dozens or hundreds of pages, multi-language rollouts, or ongoing content expansion, Webflow gives you the headroom to grow without hitting limits. 

That’s why, for serious businesses and long-term projects, Webflow is usually the better investment for SEO. It empowers marketing and design teams to iterate freely while keeping technical foundations intact. Framer remains an exciting platform, with momentum and funding to close some of the current gaps, but as of mid-2025, Webflow is still the more SEO-friendly option for companies that need their site to scale in both content and search performance. 

In the end, it comes down to your priorities: 

If visual storytelling and design speed are paramount, and your site will stay relatively small, Framer fits well.

If long-term growth, SEO results, and technical flexibility are central, then Webflow is the safer choice.

Ready to build a website that scales with your business? Omnius helps teams design, optimize, and grow on platforms like Webflow and Framer. Book a call today!

FAQ 

1. Do Webflow and Framer cover the SEO basics?

Yes, both provide meta fields, sitemaps, robots.txt, responsive images, and basic performance optimizations.

2. How do they compare for international SEO and translated URLs?

Both support locales and hreflang; Webflow additionally supports translated slugs while Framer’s slug translation is limited.

3. Can I automate structured data across many pages?

Yes, both allow JSON-LD, but Webflow’s CMS bindings make large-scale automation easier to maintain.

4. Which platform handles redirects and large migrations better?

Both offer redirects; Webflow’s bulk/wildcard workflows are generally more migration-friendly for very large sites.

5. How should teams choose between them for SEO operations?

Pick the tool that matches your priorities: choose deeper CMS, localization, and bulk controls for scale, or faster design/iteration for smaller, marketing-focused sites.