---
title: "Framer vs Astro, why I make templates for both"
canonical: "https://elliotli.dev/blog/framer-vs-astro/"
pubDate: "2026-10-12T00:00:00.000Z"
author: Elliot Li
description: "Framer and Astro aren't rivals: one is a design tool that publishes, the other an open-source framework you deploy yourself. Why I ship templates on both."
tags: [framer, astro, comparison, process]
---

import ProsCons from '../../../components/blog/ProsCons.astro';

Framer and Astro get pitted against each other, but they are not rivals. **Framer
is a design tool that publishes a site for you; Astro is an open-source code
framework you build and deploy yourself.** One gives you a canvas and a CDN, the
other gives you components and a build step. Everything below follows from that
single difference — and it is why I ship templates on both rather than picking a
side.

## What Framer actually is

Framer began as a high-fidelity prototyping tool for designers and grew into a
publishing pipeline where the canvas *is* the website. You arrange components,
bind them to a CMS, and hit publish; Framer serves the result from its own CDN.
There is no repo, no build, and no hosting decision to make.

Its defining traits:

- **A Figma-like canvas** — designers are productive in hours, not weeks.
- **Motion built in** — scroll effects, variants, and page transitions are part
  of the layout model, not plugins.
- **A marketing-scale CMS** — collections for blogs, case studies, and dynamic
  detail pages.
- **React code components** — drop in custom logic without leaving the tool.
- **No code export** — you publish on Framer; you cannot self-host the output.

## What Astro actually is

Astro is a free, open-source framework for content-driven websites. It renders
pages to HTML at build time and ships **zero JavaScript by default**, hydrating
only the interactive "islands" you ask for. It is framework-agnostic — bring
React, Vue, Svelte, or none at all — and it owns the whole stack: markup, CSS,
data, and structure.

Its defining traits:

- **Islands architecture** — static HTML by default, JS only where it earns its
  place, which is why Astro sites are so fast.
- **Content collections** — type-safe Markdown and MDX with validated
  frontmatter, the backbone of a real content site.
- **Any rendering mode** — static by default, on-demand rendering via adapters
  for Node, Vercel, Netlify, Cloudflare, and more.
- **Total control** — you decide every tag, every schema block, and every byte
  that ships.
- **You own the hosting** — and the maintenance. There is no platform to lean on.

## Head-to-head at a glance

| Area | Framer | Astro |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What it is | No-code design tool + hosting | Open-source code framework |
| Who builds it | A designer, no code | A developer, in a repo |
| Output | Hosted site on Framer's CDN | HTML you build and deploy |
| CMS | Built in, marketing-scale | Bring your own (Sanity, Contentful…) |
| Motion | Native and visual | Libraries (GSAP, Lenis…) |
| Hosting | Included | Yours to choose |
| Cost model | Per-site subscription | Free software + developer time |
| Code export | No | It *is* code |
| Best for | Fast, design-led marketing sites | Bespoke, content-heavy, owned sites |

## Why I make Framer templates

Because the buyer actually ships. A Framer template is remix → restyle →
publish, and the person who bought it can keep editing it long after I am gone.
[Eastward](/templates/eastward/) is the clearest example: a CMS-driven travel
platform where adding a destination is adding content, and the free starters give
a restaurant, a practice, or a contractor a credible site in days.

The Framer Marketplace also has real distribution, so a template finds buyers
without me running a storefront. That audience is the point.

## Why I make Astro templates

Because some sites should not live inside a builder. When a client needs a
headless CMS, custom integrations, a specific backend, or the freedom to
self-host, a canvas becomes a ceiling. [Southward](/templates/southward/) is the
other half of the catalog: an Astro + Sanity studio template with Visual Editing,
cinematic scroll, and the schema and structured data wired in from the start.

Astro is also where the SEO and answer-engine layer is strongest — because I
control the HTML, the markup is exactly as clean as I make it.

## Where each genuinely wins

**Framer wins on speed and touch.** Getting from idea to a live, animated site
that a non-developer can maintain is unmatched. If the goal is a beautiful
marketing site this week, the canvas is the shorter path.

**Astro wins on control and cost at scale.** No platform ceiling, no export
lock-in, and performance that comes from shipping less. If the site is going to
grow, integrate, or be maintained by engineers, Astro is the sturdier foundation.

<ProsCons name="Framer"
	pros={[
		'Fastest path from idea to a live, animated site',
		'A non-developer can maintain it without a repo',
		'Motion and a CMS are built in, not bolted on',
		'Marketplace distribution finds buyers for you',
	]}
	cons={[
		'No code export — you cannot self-host it',
		'CMS is marketing-scale, not relational',
		'Deep app logic and integrations hit a ceiling',
		'A per-site subscription, indefinitely',
	]}
/>

<ProsCons name="Astro"
	pros={[
		'Static HTML with zero JS by default — very fast',
		'Total control over markup, schema, and SEO',
		'Free, open source, and framework-agnostic',
		'Runs anywhere, including self-hosted',
		'Pairs with any headless CMS',
	]}
	cons={[
		'Needs a developer to build and maintain',
		'No visual canvas — editing needs a CMS',
		'You own hosting, deploys, and upgrades',
		'Slower to a first launch than a builder',
	]}
/>

## What it actually costs

Framer publishes free on a `framer.website` subdomain; the paid site plans (Mini,
Basic, and Pro) are billed **per published site**, with annual billing cheaper
than monthly. Hosting is included, and you need no developer — the price is the
subscription.

Astro's software is free and open source, and it will run on free hosting tiers.
But the honest cost is **developer time plus whatever CMS you attach** — Sanity,
Contentful, or a database. You are trading a subscription for ownership, so
compare total cost of ownership, not the sticker price.

<PlanPriceTable />

## Performance and SEO

Astro ships static HTML with almost no JavaScript, so Core Web Vitals are easy
and you control the exact structured data and markup a crawler sees. Framer
publishes fast, well-optimised pages with sensible SEO defaults out of the box.
The difference is control: Astro lets you tune every lever, while Framer gives you
good defaults and stops there — there is no code export to adjust.

## Who should choose which

- **A non-technical founder or designer** → Framer. Fastest route to a polished,
  maintainable site with no repo.
- **A studio with front-end engineers** → Astro. Full control, clean output, and
  a stack you can extend.
- **A site that is really an app** → Astro (or a full framework). Builders hit a
  wall once the logic gets deep.
- **A content-heavy site with a real CMS** → Astro, with Sanity or similar.
- **Anyone selling templates to a broad audience** → Framer's marketplace gives
  you the distribution; Astro templates sell as code and need a deploy.

## Common mistakes when choosing

1. **Treating them as interchangeable.** They are not; the real question is who
   maintains the site — a developer or a designer.
2. **Picking Framer for app logic.** Membership, complex integrations, and
   self-hosting are not its job.
3. **Picking Astro with nobody to maintain it.** A repo needs an owner.
4. **Comparing the subscription to "$0."** Astro's real cost is the developer and
   the CMS, not the framework.
5. **Expecting to export a Framer site to code.** You cannot; it publishes on
   Framer.

## Migrating between them

There is no converter. Moving a Framer site to Astro — or back — means rebuilding
the layout and re-entering content in the target stack. Reuse the copy, images,
and structure, but expect to rebuild composition and re-wire the CMS. Budget a
week for anything beyond a handful of pages.

## Verdict

If you want a design-led site published fast, without touching code, **choose
Framer**. If you want a bespoke, content-heavy site you fully own and can extend,
**choose Astro**. The "versus" framing hides the real question: who is going to
maintain it.

That is why I build for both. Start from a [free Framer
template](/free-framer-templates/) or the [premium
platforms](/premium-framer-templates/) if Framer is the fit, or the [Astro +
Sanity Southward template](/templates/southward/) if owning the code is the
point.