Why we don't build on WordPress
WordPress is a content platform from a different era. Here's why a Next.js or Astro site outperforms it for AI search.
Founder 1 min read
Summarize with AI Open this article in your preferred assistant
We get asked this often, so here it is.
WordPress is fine. It’s not the worst CMS. But for clients who want their content cited by AI, it’s the wrong default.
The three problems
1. Bloat. A typical WordPress install ships 500KB–2MB of theme and plugin JavaScript before the first paragraph of content. AI crawlers tolerate it; humans don’t, and Core Web Vitals scores drop.
2. Schema is an afterthought. Most WP SEO plugins emit generic Article or WebPage schema. Getting clean Organization → Service → FAQPage → HowTo nesting that AI extractors can actually use requires custom work that fights the platform.
3. Content extractability. AI crawlers parse the DOM. WordPress themes wrap headings in nested divs, inject author bios mid-article, and break paragraphs into plugin shortcodes. It works visually. It extracts poorly.
What we use instead
Astro for content-led sites. Static-by-default, near-zero JS, MDX for richer posts, and clean semantic HTML out of the box. This site is built on it.
Next.js for app-shaped sites: dashboards, gated content, marketplaces, anything with auth or dynamic personalization.
Both give us total control over the rendered HTML — which is what AI extractors read.
Performance gap
Source: HTTP Archive Web Almanac 2024, sampled Lighthouse audits
Median Lighthouse Performance score by stack (live sites, 2025)
- Astro static 97
What we ship
- Next.js (RSC) 89
App Router, properly tuned
- Hugo / Jekyll 95
Static, lightweight
- WordPress (median) 41
Plugin bloat + render-blocking themes
Frequently asked
Questions buyers ask before booking
Are you saying WordPress is dead?
No. WordPress runs roughly 40% of the web and is not going anywhere for content sites at scale. We are saying it is the wrong stack for a brand whose competitive priority is AI search citation. For a publisher with 10,000+ posts and an editorial team trained on WordPress, the migration cost rarely justifies itself.
Why specifically Astro?
Static-first, content-collection-typed schema generation, Lighthouse 95+ by default, zero JavaScript runtime overhead on content pages. For B2B brand sites with 10–200 pages, Astro outperforms every alternative on the signals AI search rewards. Next.js is the equivalent answer for product or app sites with dynamic UI requirements.
What about WordPress + a headless CMS approach?
Better. Decoupled WordPress (using it as headless CMS feeding a Next.js or Astro frontend) recovers most of the speed and schema benefits. The downside is operational complexity and team retraining. For most growth-stage B2B brands, a clean Astro build is faster to ship than a headless WordPress migration.
Do you ever recommend WordPress?
Yes. For editorial publishers with established WordPress workflows, large content libraries, and where AI search is not the primary growth channel. For B2B SaaS, agencies, and consultancies whose buyers research in ChatGPT, no.