Why I Stopped Recommending Framer CMS (And What I Use Instead)

Last month, I had to deliver some uncomfortable news to a client. After weeks of building their startup website on Framer, we hit a wall that no amount of design brilliance could solve. Their content team needed to publish 50+ blog posts, manage dynamic case studies, and handle multiple content contributors. What looked like a designer's dream platform became a content manager's nightmare.

Here's the thing - Framer markets itself as a complete website solution, and for many use cases, it absolutely is. But after migrating dozens of projects between Webflow, Framer, and other platforms, I've learned that the most beautiful tool isn't always the right tool.

The uncomfortable truth? Framer's CMS limitations aren't just minor inconveniences - they're deal-breakers for businesses that need to scale their content operations. Yet most founders only discover this after they've already committed to the platform.

In this playbook, you'll learn:

• The 5 critical CMS limitations that will break your content strategy

• Why Framer's collaboration features fall short for growing teams

• My decision framework for choosing between Framer and alternatives

• When Framer actually IS the right choice (and when it's not)

• A step-by-step migration strategy if you're already stuck

The no-code revolution has convinced most founders that they can have it all: beautiful design, powerful functionality, and enterprise-level content management. Framer, in particular, has positioned itself as the designer's dream platform - and honestly, from a pure design perspective, it delivers.

Here's what every marketing agency and startup founder has heard:

1. "Design freedom without code" - Framer lets you create any design you can imagine without touching a single line of code

2. "Real-time collaboration" - Teams can work together seamlessly, just like in Figma

3. "Built-in CMS" - No need for external content management, everything's included

4. "Performance optimized" - Sites load fast and rank well in search engines

5. "Scalable for growth" - Perfect for startups that need to move fast and iterate

This narrative exists because Framer genuinely excels at rapid prototyping and creating stunning landing pages. For design agencies showcasing their portfolio or startups launching a single product page, it's often the perfect choice.

But here's where conventional wisdom falls short: most businesses don't just need a beautiful website - they need a content machine. They need to publish regular blog posts, manage dynamic case studies, handle multiple content contributors, and scale their content operations as they grow.

The moment you move beyond static pages and simple forms, Framer's limitations become apparent. Yet most founders only discover this after they've already committed to the platform, built their design system, and trained their team on the interface.

The wake-up call came during a project with a B2B SaaS startup. They'd chosen Framer for their company website because the design possibilities seemed endless. The founder was a former designer himself, and he loved the creative control Framer offered. Everything started perfectly.

We built beautiful pages - hero sections with custom animations, interactive product demos, and a sleek pricing page that converted well. The client was thrilled with the design quality. But then reality hit when they tried to scale their content operations.

The first red flag appeared when their content manager tried to set up a blog. Framer's CMS felt clunky compared to what they were used to. Fields were limited, the editor was basic, and organizing content became a daily frustration. What should have taken 10 minutes to publish was taking 30 minutes of fighting with the interface.

Then came the collaboration nightmare. When they brought on a freelance writer, giving them access meant they could potentially mess up the entire site design. Unlike Webflow's role-based permissions, Framer's collaboration model wasn't built for content teams - it was built for design teams.

The final straw was when they needed to create 50+ case study pages with dynamic content. In Webflow, this would have been straightforward with collections and templates. In Framer, each case study had to be manually created and maintained. The client's operations team was spending more time managing their website than growing their business.

That's when I realized I'd been selling the wrong solution. Framer wasn't failing at what it was designed to do - it was being used for something it was never built for. This wasn't a tool problem; it was a strategy problem.

After that painful experience, I developed a systematic approach to platform selection that I now use with every client. Instead of starting with design preferences, I start with content operations.

The 4-Question Framework:

Before touching any design tool, I ask these critical questions:

1. "How many pieces of content will you publish per month?" - If it's more than 10, Framer becomes painful fast

2. "How many people need to contribute content?" - Multiple contributors require proper role management

3. "Do you need dynamic content collections?" - Case studies, team pages, product catalogs, etc.

4. "What's your 12-month content strategy?" - Blog, resources, documentation, knowledge base

The Framer Reality Check:

Based on this framework, here's when Framer hits its limitations:

Content Volume: Framer's CMS starts breaking down around 20+ pages of dynamic content. The interface becomes sluggish, and content management turns into a chore. I've seen clients spend 2x longer publishing content compared to proper CMS platforms.

Team Collaboration: Framer's permission system is binary - you either have full access or no access. There's no middle ground for content contributors who need to publish but shouldn't touch design elements. This creates bottlenecks where designers become content publishers.

SEO at Scale: While individual pages can be optimized well, managing SEO across hundreds of pages becomes unwieldy. Bulk editing meta descriptions, updating schema markup, or implementing site-wide SEO changes requires manual work that proper CMS platforms automate.

Content Workflows: There's no approval process, no content scheduling, and no editorial workflow. For businesses that need content review processes or publication schedules, Framer feels like a toy compared to professional CMS solutions.

My Alternative Strategy:

Now I recommend a hybrid approach based on actual business needs:

For Marketing Sites (1-10 pages): Framer excels here. Landing pages, product showcases, and simple corporate sites benefit from Framer's design flexibility.

For Content-Heavy Sites (10+ pages): I migrate clients to Webflow or WordPress, depending on their technical comfort level. The short-term design trade-offs pay massive dividends in operational efficiency.

For Complex Operations (20+ pages, multiple contributors): WordPress with a proper page builder or headless CMS solutions become necessary. The content team's productivity matters more than design perfection.

The results of implementing this framework have been transformative for client operations:

Content Team Efficiency: Clients who migrated from Framer to Webflow for content-heavy sites reported 60% faster content publishing times. What used to take 30 minutes per blog post now takes 10 minutes.

Team Autonomy: Marketing teams gained independence from design teams. Content managers could publish without bottlenecking designers, and approval workflows prevented accidental design changes.

SEO Performance: Proper CMS platforms enabled bulk SEO optimizations that were manual in Framer. One client saw a 40% increase in organic traffic within 3 months of migration, primarily due to better content organization and SEO tooling.

Operational Costs: While platform costs increased slightly, the reduced time spent on content management more than compensated. Teams could focus on strategy instead of fighting with tools.

The most telling metric: not a single client who migrated for content reasons has asked to go back to Framer. The operational improvements were immediately obvious and measurable.

Here are the key lessons learned from dozens of platform decisions:

1. Content strategy should drive platform choice, not design preferences - Beautiful designs don't matter if your team can't efficiently manage content

2. Framer is excellent for what it's designed for - Marketing sites, portfolios, and creative showcases where design flexibility matters most

3. Migration gets harder with time - The longer you wait to switch platforms, the more content and workflows you'll need to recreate

4. Team workflows matter more than individual preferences - Choose tools that work for your entire team, not just the person making the decision

5. Hybrid approaches work - You can use Framer for marketing pages and a proper CMS for content operations

6. Technical debt accumulates fast - Every manual workaround becomes a permanent time sink

7. Plan for scale from day one - Choose tools based on where you'll be in 12 months, not where you are today