Hall Web Design vs Webflow
Verdictvs Webflow
Webflow is genuinely good for designer-led teams who want to build marketing sites without writing code. A custom Next.js build wins on portability, long-term cost past the first year or two, non-standard interactions, and when the visual editor's abstractions start getting in the way.
Webflow sits in an interesting spot: not a full no-code builder like Wix, not a full code stack like Next.js. It gives a designer-friendly canvas that outputs real HTML and CSS, with a CMS for dynamic content. For small marketing sites run by a designer-only team, that's a real sweet spot. This page is for the cases where Webflow stops being the sweet spot.
Launch speed (10-page brochure)
Two to three weeks from brief to launch, including design and CMS setup. A week if a designer is fluent in Webflow. Hard to beat for a pure brochure. Visual editing workflow for non-developers
Decap CMS or similar in-browser editor for content. No drag-and-drop layout editing. Purpose-built for this. A designer can build and edit without ever opening code. Monthly hosting cost
£0-£20/mo on Vercel. Scales with usage, not seats or features. £14-£49/mo for a site plan; workspace seats extra. £300+/yr minimum for a real site, £1000+/yr for anything with a CMS and a team. Performance (Lighthouse)
95+ out of the box. Static rendering, edge caching, image optimisation. Sub-2s LCP typical. Reasonable. Typical Webflow sites sit at 75-85 mobile. Cleaner markup than Wix, but the visual editor adds DOM bloat you can't strip out. Export and portability
Code in a git repo, content in markdown or JSON. Trivial to move anywhere. Export is technically possible (paid plan) but gives you static HTML + CSS with no CMS, no forms, no interactivity. Moving off Webflow cleanly is painful. Custom interactions and scripting
Any interaction is a React component. No ceiling. Webflow's interaction panel is genuinely powerful for design-level animations. Real JavaScript (API calls, custom state, integrations) requires custom code embeds that fight the visual editor. CMS editor UX for clients
Decap CMS is good but not as polished as Webflow's editor mode. Editor mode is the best in the low-code category. Clients can update content without breaking layout. Vendor lock-in
None. Any Next.js developer can pick up the codebase and continue. Real. Webflow is a proprietary platform. If Webflow changes pricing or shuts a feature, you're affected. No path off without a rebuild. When Webflow is actually the right call
Designer-led team, code-free workflow required. If the team building the site doesn't code and doesn't want to learn, Webflow is the highest-ceiling no-code option. A designer can build genuinely polished sites without hiring a developer.
Agencies running 10+ sites with a designer team. The workspace model scales well when a design team is the primary producer. The monthly cost per site is justified by the hours saved on dev handover.
Marketing sites that live or die on visual design iteration. Landing pages that change weekly, campaign microsites, A/B tested homepage variants - Webflow's visual editor lets a designer iterate without a deployment cycle.
You want a CMS editor that clients won't break. Webflow's editor mode is genuinely the best CMS UX in the low-code space. If editor experience is the top constraint, it's hard to match.
Where I come in
For the cases where Webflow's model - proprietary platform, designer-first editing, monthly seat costs - stops being the right trade-off.
Sites that will be live for years and ship irregularly. A Webflow site costs £300-£1000+/yr to keep running. A custom Next.js site on Vercel's free tier costs £0, runs faster, and doesn't get held hostage when Webflow changes its pricing. Over three years the custom site is cheaper in real money even before counting rebuilds-on-migration risk.
Complex integrations. Stripe subscriptions, custom booking flows, API-driven content, auth walls, anything that needs real backend logic. Webflow's custom code embeds can squeeze in scripts, but you're working against the platform. Next.js treats integrations as native.
Sites that need to rank competitively on SEO-hard keywords. Webflow is adequate on SEO; a custom build is usually 30+ Lighthouse points faster and has complete control over markup, schema, and URL structures. At the margin where rankings are close, that gap matters.
Ownership as a non-negotiable. Webflow is a platform. If Webflow shuts down, changes its licensing model, or raises prices, your site is affected. Code in a git repo is code you own. If that matters to you (and for business-critical sites it usually does), a custom build is the right answer.
Common questions
Can I export my Webflow site to code and have you take it over?+
Sort of. Webflow's export on paid plans gives you static HTML, CSS, and assets, but no CMS content, no forms, no Webflow interactions, and no CMS connection. In practice I treat Webflow-to-Next.js as a redesign rather than a migration - I'll take the content and design language from your current site but rebuild the layout and interactions. Two to three weeks for a standard marketing site.
Is Webflow cheaper long-term than a custom build?+
For the first 6-12 months, often yes - no dev build cost, low monthly fees. Past year one the maths shifts. A custom build has a one-time cost and near-zero monthly cost; Webflow keeps charging. For sites that will exist for 3+ years, custom is usually cheaper in total. The other hidden cost is the rebuild when you eventually want to leave Webflow - that's a project Webflow's export does not save you from.
Can a non-technical client edit a custom Next.js site?+
Yes. I wire up Decap CMS or a similar in-browser editor for clients who need to update content themselves. It's not as polished as Webflow's editor mode - fewer visual affordances, no drag-and-drop layout - but for "change this text, swap this image, add a blog post" it works well. V Clarke Books in the portfolio runs exactly this setup.
What about Webflow's CMS? It's pretty good.+
It is pretty good - genuinely the best CMS editor in the low-code category. The trade-off is the lock-in: your content lives in Webflow's database schema, not in portable markdown files. If you ever leave Webflow, the CMS content has to be re-entered by hand. For clients where editor UX is the top priority and lock-in is acceptable, Webflow wins. For clients where content portability matters (and for most business-critical sites it should), custom + Decap or similar is the right call.
Is Webflow's SEO as good as custom?+
Close enough that SEO alone isn't a reason to leave Webflow. Webflow outputs reasonable semantic HTML, supports meta tags and schema, and has clean URL structures. A custom build typically wins on Core Web Vitals (the Lighthouse gap is real) and on fine-grained schema control (per-page JSON-LD, structured data beyond the basics). On competitive keywords those differences compound; on uncontested queries you won't notice.
Who should pick Webflow over a custom build?+
Small agencies running multiple client sites where designers are the primary producers and monthly costs are absorbed into retainers. In-house marketing teams where a designer owns the site and doesn't want a developer in the loop for every change. Landing pages that need to ship and iterate fast without a deployment cycle. For anyone else - especially one-off small-business sites that need to last years - a custom build is usually the better trade.
Done with Webflow?
Tell me what your current site is costing you - in page-load time, plugin headaches, or conversions - and I'll tell you whether a rebuild is worth it.