WordPress and Astro solve the same problem in opposite ways. WordPress assembles every page from a database when someone requests it, using PHP on the server. Astro builds all pages once in advance, and afterwards the server only holds finished HTML files. For a business site with eight to twelve pages that change a few times a year, that difference matters more than any design question.
This comparison is for small businesses and the web designers who build for them. It is not a verdict on WordPress as a whole. According to W3Techs, WordPress runs 39.5 percent of all websites and 58.2 percent of sites with a known content management system. It works, and its ecosystem is enormous. The question is whether a small site needs that ecosystem.
The short version
| Criterion | Astro (static) | WordPress |
|---|---|---|
| What runs on the server | finished HTML, CSS and image files | PHP, a database, themes, plugins |
| Updates | rarely, only when you rebuild | WordPress, PHP, the theme and every plugin, continuously |
| Attack surface | small | larger, mainly through plugins |
| Editing text yourself | with a git-based CMS or via a developer | in the editor, no developer needed |
| Hosting | any web host, the smallest plan will do | hosting with PHP and a database |
| Shop, members’ area, lots of features | via extra services | via plugins, very broad |
| Who can work with it | mostly developers and AI agents | a huge number of agencies and freelancers |
Security and upkeep
This is where the two differ most. A WordPress site consists of WordPress itself, the PHP version on the server, a theme and a number of plugins. Every one of those parts gets security updates, and someone has to install every one of them.
Patchstack’s annual report shows how much that adds up to: 11,334 new vulnerabilities in the WordPress ecosystem in 2025, 42 percent more than the year before. 91 percent were in plugins, and for 46 percent no fix was available when they were disclosed. Patchstack sells security services, so these are vendor figures.
Then there is the layer below. In October 2026 the PHP project closed two critical vulnerabilities for which updating was the only complete fix. Every WordPress site on a server running an outdated PHP version was exposed. What that means for running a site is covered in Operations matter more than design.
A static Astro site runs no PHP or database code when a page is opened, so vulnerabilities of that kind don’t hit it directly. It still needs some care: the web server, a form script and the logins for the domain and hosting have to be kept current and protected.
Till Heidrich’s view: A small WordPress site usually becomes a risk when nobody feels responsible for it after launch. A static site is more forgiving of that.
Speed and accessibility
Only 48 percent of websites pass all of Google’s Core Web Vitals on mobile, according to the HTTP Archive’s 2025 analysis of real-user data. A static site has an easier start, because no server has to compute anything and no plugins load extra scripts. It is still only fast if images, fonts and scripts are handled properly.
On accessibility, the WebAIM Million 2026 has a striking figure: Astro home pages averaged 9.0 automatically detectable errors, WordPress home pages 52.8. That is a correlation, not proof. Astro sites tend to be smaller and are more often built by developers who pay attention to these things. Astro doesn’t make a site accessible by itself, and WordPress doesn’t stop you from doing it.
What about Google?
Google doesn’t prefer one system over another. Whether a site is built with WordPress or Astro makes no difference to rankings in itself. What counts is what comes out when the page is fetched: readable HTML with sensible headings, a unique title and description per page, fast loading, clean URLs, a sitemap and content that answers questions.
Both routes get there. Astro outputs finished HTML by default, and titles, descriptions, structured data and the sitemap live in the code. With WordPress, SEO plugins usually handle this. They work well, but they are one more plugin to update. A WordPress site is rarely slow because of WordPress itself; heavy themes, page builders and third-party scripts are the usual cause.
The same goes for answers from AI assistants. They read the text of the page. Clear headings, short answers at the start of a section and named sources help far more than the choice of system.
Editing content yourself
The strongest argument for WordPress is its editor. If you regularly publish news, job ads or project write-ups and don’t want to call a developer every time, WordPress is easy to get used to.
Astro has no built-in editor. There are three ways to handle this:
- No CMS. A developer or an AI agent changes the text in the code. For pages that change three or four times a year, this is often the cheapest option.
- A git-based CMS. An editing interface in the browser that saves changes as files. No database server, no plugin updates.
- A headless CMS. A separate content system that feeds content to Astro. Worth it with many content types and several editors.
Which one fits is covered in Headless CMS for small websites.
Cost over three years
The software itself is free in both cases. The costs come from elsewhere.
With WordPress they are hosting with PHP and a database, premium themes and plugins with yearly licences, and above all the time spent on updates, backups and troubleshooting. If you don’t do that yourself, you pay for a maintenance plan.
With Astro the smallest plan from a web host is enough. Ongoing care is lighter, but without a CMS every change costs developer time. For a site that rarely changes, Astro therefore usually works out cheaper over three years. For a site that gets new content every week, WordPress can be cheaper, because those changes don’t need a developer.
When WordPress is still the better choice
- Several people publish content regularly and want an editor they know.
- The site needs lots of features that exist as ready-made plugins, such as members’ areas, course management or a shop with many payment and shipping options.
- The team or agency knows WordPress well and has a fixed update routine.
- There is already a well-maintained WordPress site. Moving without a concrete reason just costs money.
When Astro is the better choice
- Content rarely changes, and nobody wants to look after plugin updates.
- Load time and accessibility should be right without plugins.
- The site is built and maintained with an AI agent. Astro files are easy for agents to read, because content and structure are plain text.
- Funnels and landing pages that need to load fast and don’t need a content system.
Moving from WordPress to Astro
A move pays off when the existing site rarely changes and updates keep slipping. The Astro documentation describes the route. The most important part is a complete list of all old URLs with redirects to the new ones, otherwise you lose rankings. Images, forms and legal pages should be checked one by one afterwards.
Where to start
Every design in the gallery exports to Astro, plain HTML or a WordPress block theme. So you don’t have to decide when you choose the design, only when you launch. Examples for trades and consultancies are under Trades and Consulting.