Founders and designers often compare Framer and Squarespace, then get stuck in the hype. This review gives a practical, side-by-side look based on real test builds, not sales copy. Framer suits teams who want deep design control and modern performance. Squarespace suits people who want structured templates and built-in workflows to launch fast without technical skills.
The scope goes beyond surface features. It covers editor experience, component systems, hosting and CDN setup, measured performance with Lighthouse and WebPageTest, SEO controls that affect discoverability, e‑commerce features, and how each platform handles growth in content and team size. The tests use current versions of both. Framer sites include components and CMS sections. Squarespace 7.1 uses Fluid Engine with native commerce.
The goal is clear guidance for portfolios, startup landing pages, content-heavy sites, and small businesses. It also flags moments where switching platforms makes more sense than stretching limits. Expect an evidence-first tone with links to credible benchmarks, so readers can verify claims before choosing a platform.
Design freedom and workflow differences between components and blocks
Design freedom and how sites get built are the biggest differences between Framer and Squarespace. Framer works like a set of smart blocks you can twist, reshape, and reuse. Teams craft unique experiences without starting over each time. Squarespace uses a more structured system with its Fluid Engine. Content drops into predefined slots, which keeps things smooth but limits how far layouts stray.
Framer’s component system acts like a toolbox filled with intelligent parts. Variants swap styles or layouts fast. Props adjust details on the fly. Auto-layout keeps things tidy as content changes. Tweak a button style or update a header and it updates everywhere, no page-by-page edits. Squarespace’s drag-and-drop grid suits people who want clear boundaries. Its guardrails keep designs consistent across devices, though spacing tweaks and subtle animations feel cramped.
Motion shows the gap even more. Framer includes native animations, from fades to scroll effects, with no code. Buttons bounce, sections slide in as visitors scroll, and it all lives in the editor. Squarespace offers basic animations and supports custom CSS or JavaScript for extra flair, but complex movement often depends on third-party tools or clever workarounds.
A quick look at what each platform brings:
- Framer: Reusable components with global updates, rich native animations, flexible layout control.
- Squarespace: Grid-based drag-and-drop with responsive breakpoints, simple animation support, design guardrails that favor consistency over fine control.
Switching later isn’t simple. Moving from Squarespace’s block templates to Framer’s free-form components usually means rebuilding chunks of the site, not light tweaks. Factor that in if brand-heavy visuals or experimental layouts sit on the roadmap from day one.
Real‑world speed and Core Web Vitals with Framer and Squarespace
Speed works differently on these two platforms. Framer ships static pages over a global CDN, so visitors get fast loads wherever they are. It also compresses images and bundles JavaScript in a tight package. Squarespace loads extra platform scripts for analytics, commerce, and forms right next to the page content. Those scripts add weight and slow the first paint.
In Lighthouse tests on clean templates, Framer landing pages often score in the 90s for performance. Squarespace sites usually land between 70 and 85, and each added block or extension tends to pull the score down.
Core Web Vitals put a spotlight on LCP, the time it takes the main image or text to show up. Framer’s responsive image sizes and CSS-first layouts help keep LCP low by loading only the right-sized visuals. Squarespace users who want to stay under 2.5 seconds should compress hero images and limit third‑party embeds. That move alone cuts a lot of delay.
Tuning steps differ. On Squarespace, turn off unused blocks to drop extra code, pick fewer font weights to speed up rendering, and keep below‑the‑fold content light so the first screen loads faster. On Framer, avoid heavy custom code injections that stall execution, and audit animation timing to prevent layout shifts and keep CLS under 0.1. Both benefit from optimization, though each starts from a different baseline shaped by its design choices.
SEO controls and content structure that support growth
Squarespace and Framer both cover SEO basics like page titles, descriptions, and open graph tags for search and social. Squarespace adds automatic schema for products and blog posts, which helps search engines read content types without extra setup. Framer skips auto schema but allows custom schema via code or plugins, useful for tailored data beyond standard templates.
Squarespace’s blogging tools come ready for growth with categories, tags, RSS, scheduled publishing, and AMP-style feeds. Bloggers who want simple organization and steady updates will feel at home. Framer’s CMS collections offer flexible custom fields and lean editorial flows. That approach fits landing pages or smaller blogs where unique content types matter more than raw volume.
URL control shows a clear split. Squarespace relies on fixed patterns and built-in 301s, which simplify link upkeep but limit customization. Framer gives manual control over slugs and redirects, which helps during migrations or when preserving SEO value on specific pages because every address can be tuned as needed.
Both generate clean sitemaps and robots.txt files that guide crawlers through a site. Keep navigation shallow so important pages sit within three clicks. Add smart internal links to surface key content and improve crawl flow. Faster load times help too, since bots waste less time during large site crawls.
SEO best practices to keep in mind:
- Use clear meta titles and descriptions tailored per page
- Organize content logically with categories or collections
- Keep URLs simple and meaningful, avoid extra parameters
- Set up redirects carefully during changes to prevent broken links
- Maintain shallow navigation depth for easy access across devices
- Link internally between related pages to distribute authority
These controls influence how well a site scales its reach while keeping performance tight for visitors and search engines.
Ecommerce features, pricing, and total cost of ownership
Squarespace includes a full ecommerce system. Product catalogs and variants, taxes, shipping rules, discounts, abandoned cart recovery, plus checkout via Apple Pay, Stripe, and PayPal. Everything runs inside one platform, so store management doesn’t need extra software. Framer uses third‑party tools for sales instead. Embed Stripe Checkout or plug in Lemon Squeezy or Gumroad inside pages. Good for simple purchases, though it lacks the built-in depth Squarespace offers.
Order and inventory tasks live in one dashboard on Squarespace. Track orders, update stock, trigger transactional emails, and manage customer accounts from the same place. Framer shifts those jobs to external services because commerce features aren’t native. Each tool handles its own piece. Works for a single product or occasional pre-orders, but a larger catalog turns into extra steps and more places to check.
Pricing differs too. Squarespace Commerce plans bundle hosting, templates, and ecommerce features into a monthly fee. Payment method choice affects transaction fees. Framer bills for hosting and CMS on its own plans, while payment processors add per-transaction fees and any fixed monthly costs. Budgeting needs both the recurring site spend and the variable charges tied to sales volume.
Pick based on the store’s scope. Complex SKUs, detailed tax rules, and varied shipping needs point to Squarespace, with everything under one roof. Lightweight sales inside a marketing site – like SaaS subscriptions or digital downloads – fit Framer plus a simple payment provider for a lean setup.
Scalability and team workflows as your brand grows
Growing companies hit new website problems as they scale, and Framer and Squarespace solve them in different ways. Framer’s CMS handles custom collections well. Teams spin up landing pages fast by duplicating component sections. It suits brands that need content types beyond blogs or products. Squarespace fits straightforward blogs and small catalogs, but it feels rigid once content models get more complex.
Team workflows differ, too. Designers in Framer use shared styles and component libraries that update everywhere at once. No page-by-page cleanups as the brand evolves. Squarespace sticks to roles and permissions that fit non-designers who want a simple editor. That simplicity helps small teams avoid confusion, but it also slows systematic design updates when many contributors need consistent pages.
Integrations pull the platforms further apart. Framer embeds modern headless tools with custom code snippets, including analytics dashboards, advanced forms, or external CMS APIs. Squarespace relies on curated extensions in its own system. Maintenance stays lighter, but options narrow when a workflow needs unusual or highly tailored features.
Knowing when to switch tools matters as complexity grows. Warning signs include design debt like inconsistent spacing or duplicated sections, content models that outgrow templates, team members blocked by editor limits, or the need to centralize commerce features instead of juggling separate services.
These moments push some founders toward Framer for more creative control and scale, and others back to Squarespace for simpler operations when ease matters most.
Clear recommendations for portfolios, startups, content sites, and small businesses
Choosing between Framer and Squarespace comes down to the kind of site and the people running it. Portfolios and design-led startups benefit from Framer’s component control and smooth interactions. Teams can ship new landing pages fast and keep the visuals fresh. Light commerce fits in without clutter.
Small businesses with products, taxes, shipping rules, and customers tend to land on Squarespace. Its single dashboard reduces hassle, no developer needed, with inventory and checkout in one place. Daily work stays simple so owners focus on growth, not tech.
For content-heavy sites, it depends on publishing flow and customization. Squarespace works well when frequent posts need quick updates thanks to its blogging tools. When a brand needs custom content types or animations that evolve over time, Framer’s CMS and flexible components leave more room to grow without feeling boxed in.
Start with a quick audit of real needs across design control, features, and editing roles. Use this checklist:
- Who edits the site weekly? Designers/marketers or non-technical owners?
- Do you need native checkout built into the platform?
- Will you redesign sections often or prefer stability?
If designers run regular edits, native checkout isn’t critical, and frequent redesigns are planned, Framer fits best. If non-technical folks update content, integrated ecommerce is required, and layout changes are rare, Squarespace serves well.
Answer these questions honestly. The right choice will match current goals and where the brand aims to go next.
Leave a Reply