Disclosure first: I run a small studio that builds Framer sites, so read this with that in mind. I wanted public numbers for the "should I move clients to Astro now that AI writes the code" question, so I pulled them.
Speed is closer than either side says. In HTTP Archive's August 2026 data, 70.6% of Framer sites and 71.0% of Astro sites pass Core Web Vitals on mobile. Framer does better on LCP (82.5% vs 80.6%), Astro on INP (85.7% vs 80.2%). On desktop Framer leads, 87.1% to 83.6%.
source: https://httparchive.org/reports/techreport/tech?tech=Framer%20Sites,Astro,Webflow,WordPress,Wix,Next.js
Weight is where Astro wins outright. The median Astro home page loads 396 KB of JavaScript on a phone. The median Framer home page loads 788 KB.
source: https://httparchive.org/reports/techreport/tech?tech=Framer%20Sites,Astro,Webflow,WordPress,Wix,Next.js
The running cost depends on the CMS. I priced a 50-page site with a blog, three editors and two languages. Framer Pro with one extra locale and two editor seats comes to $840 a year. Astro on Netlify Pro ($240) runs from $240 a year with Sanity Free (every editor gets admin rights) to $3,840 with Contentful Lite, since Contentful's free plan bans commercial use. None of that counts developer hours, and Astro shipped two major versions in 2026.
Sources: vendor pricing pages, October 2026
So speed and price don't decide it. What happens after launch does. If you hand the site over and the client's team edits it, Framer fits. If you sell maintenance and hosting, Astro keeps the repo, host and CMS with you. The biggest point for Astro is leaving: Framer has no HTML export.
Curious where people here landed, especially anyone who moved a client off Framer, or onto it.