WordPress vs. Next.js? The Right Choice for a Business Website

There's no single honest answer to "WordPress or Next.js" — because the two were built to solve different problems. This post isn't an ad for why Groopy builds its sites on Next.js; it's a comparison grounded in real performance and security data, showing which one makes more sense in which situation.

This question usually comes up right at the start of a website project, during the proposal stage — and the answer often gets shaped by which technology the agency or developer already knows, not by what the project actually needs. In this post we look at data from independent sources — W3Techs, HTTP Archive, Patchstack, and Wordfence — to ground the decision in the project's real requirements rather than a technology preference.

Why is WordPress so widely used?

Per W3Techs' current data, WordPress powers 40.2% of all websites — and 58.8% of sites with a known content management system. Compared to its nearest rivals, Shopify (5.3%) and Wix (4.2%), WordPress' share is more than eight times larger.

This dominance has real reasons behind it: thousands of ready plugins and themes, the ability for a non-technical team to manage content on its own, a low starting cost, and a massive developer pool. For a blog, a small business brochure site, or a fast MVP, WordPress is still a reasonable choice — this post isn't here to deny that.

In practice, that means: if a marketing team is publishing a new page or blog post every week, WordPress's drag-and-drop editor and ready-made plugin solutions (forms, SEO plugins, caching plugins) get things done without waiting on a developer. For small teams that need to move fast, that's a genuine advantage — not a weak spot in the technology choice.

When does Next.js make sense?

Next.js isn't a CMS — it's a React framework that pre-renders pages on the server (SSR/SSG) and automates image and code optimization. That means it doesn't come with a ready-made admin panel like WordPress; but its performance and security surface depend on the framework's own architecture, not on how many plugins get installed. It's favored for projects with custom business logic, high traffic, or a priority on lowering long-term maintenance cost.

In concrete terms: if you need something a standard plugin can't solve — an e-commerce integration, a custom pricing calculator, a booking system that talks to APIs — that already means writing custom code either way. Bolting custom code onto WordPress (inside a plugin or theme files) is generally more fragile and harder to maintain than doing the same work in a framework like Next.js, which was built for custom development from the ground up.

Performance: real Core Web Vitals data

Per HTTP Archive's 2025 Web Almanac CMS chapter, WordPress sites pass Core Web Vitals as "good" on mobile only 45% of the time — roughly a 4-point improvement year over year, but still a low number. Breaking it down by metric: LCP (largest contentful paint) passes at 53%, CLS (layout stability) at 84%; INP (interaction responsiveness) is WordPress's weakest metric.

The trend gives useful context: per prior Web Almanac editions, WordPress's mobile CWV pass rate was under 15% in 2020, reached roughly 40-41% by 2024, and 45% by 2025. So the platform is genuinely improving — but since most competing CMS platforms are improving at the same pace or faster, WordPress's relative position stays in the lagging group.

Worth being honest here: HTTP Archive's data only tracks CMS platforms — Next.js isn't a CMS, so it doesn't appear in this table, and there's no direct, apples-to-apples statistic we can point to for "X% of Next.js sites pass." Next.js's performance case comes from a different place: features like server-side rendering, automatic code splitting, and image optimization make performance a function of the framework's own default behavior, not of picking the right plugin. In Vercel's own example app, upgrading the Next.js version took the Lighthouse performance score from 32 to 99 — worth noting this is the vendor's own internal demo, not an independent benchmark.

Security: is the problem core, or plugins?

The most common mistake in talking about WordPress security is pinning the issue on the platform itself. Two independent security firms converge on the same finding: per Patchstack's 2025 data, 11,334 new vulnerabilities were found across the WordPress ecosystem (a 42% year-over-year increase); 91% came from plugins, 9% from themes — only 6 vulnerabilities were found in WordPress core itself, and all were rated low-priority. 17% of new vulnerabilities were rated high risk.

Wordfence's 2024 report confirms the same pattern: 8,223 vulnerabilities were disclosed (a 68% increase), of which 96% came from plugins. The same report notes that WordPress sites faced 54 billion malicious requests and 55 billion password-guessing attacks in 2024 — a direct consequence of the platform's popularity: the most-used system is also the most-targeted one.

To be fair, this data doesn't show that WordPress itself is insecure — the core team is notably rigorous about security. The real risk is that every extra plugin installed for a site's functionality opens its own attack surface, and keeping those plugins updated falls on the site owner. A framework like Next.js doesn't have that kind of third-party plugin ecosystem, so this specific risk category is structurally removed — that doesn't mean Next.js is "bug-free," just that it carries a different risk profile.

If you're running a WordPress site, there are concrete ways to reduce this risk: only install plugins you genuinely need, fully remove (not just deactivate) unused plugins and themes, keep every plugin and WordPress core updated, and where possible, monitor for attack attempts with a security plugin (like Wordfence). These steps don't eliminate the risk category, but they meaningfully shrink it.

A third path: headless WordPress + Next.js

You don't have to choose one or the other. In a "headless WordPress" setup, the content team keeps using WordPress's familiar admin panel as the content editor, but the site's frontend is built with Next.js — WordPress just acts as a content API. This preserves the WordPress experience the content team already knows, while moving the site's performance and security burden (including the plugin risk discussed above, since frontend plugins are no longer needed) onto the Next.js side.

This comes at a cost: setting up and integrating two separate systems (WordPress backend + Next.js frontend) is more complex and expensive to start than a single WordPress install. That's why it's usually chosen not for small projects, but for mid-to-large projects where the content team is already comfortable with WordPress and performance genuinely matters.

Cost: upfront and long-term are calculated differently

There's no reliable single "total cost of ownership" statistic here — every figure we found was either uncited or used unclear methodology, so we won't manufacture a number. But the general pattern holds: upfront cost (a ready theme plus plugins) is usually lower with WordPress; custom Next.js development starts more expensive. The picture can shift over time — the security data above shows WordPress carries an ongoing maintenance load (plugin updates, security monitoring), which means total cost may not stay as low as it looks at launch. We covered realistic website cost ranges in more depth separately.

Which one fits which situation?

This isn't a "WordPress bad, Next.js good" story — the right choice depends on the project:

• WordPress makes sense when: your content team isn't technical and needs to update independently and often; budget is tight and getting started quickly matters; a standard blog or business brochure site is enough. Example: a business publishing a few blog posts a week, with its own content team, that wants to move fast without waiting on a developer.
• Next.js makes sense when: performance and Core Web Vitals directly affect a business outcome (e.g., a conversion-focused site); custom business logic or integration is required; reducing long-term security maintenance is a priority; you want to avoid plugin dependency as the site grows. Example: a landing page funded by Google Ads spend, where every second of delay costs conversions, or a service site that needs a custom booking or pricing-calculation system.

A common mistake is making this decision based on technology trends — "everyone uses React, so should we" or the opposite, "WordPress is already good enough, why bother." The right question isn't about technology at all — it's the project's real constraints: how often content changes, whether a technical team exists, how much performance affects the business outcome, and long-term maintenance capacity.

This is exactly why Groopy only builds on Next.js: we want the performance and security burden of the sites we deliver to depend on the architecture we build from the start, not on plugins a client installs later. Our Website Development service is built around that approach.

Why does this comparison usually go unsourced?

Content ranking for Turkish searches like "WordPress or Next.js" is mostly either uncited marketing copy ("WordPress loads in 4-8 seconds"-style claims with no source at all) or technical guides on integrating WordPress as a headless CMS with Next.js. Only one piece we reviewed cited W3Techs even once; none referenced sources like Patchstack, Wordfence, or HTTP Archive.

More notably, most of what we reviewed was one-sided: either a WordPress agency praising WordPress, or a software company praising Next.js — none acknowledged both technologies' genuine weak points in the same piece. This post's contribution is showing both sides with verifiable data, while still crediting WordPress's real strengths.

Conclusion

WordPress and Next.js solve different problems: one prioritizes speed and ease, the other performance and long-term control. The real data shows WordPress's Core Web Vitals pass rate is low and most of its security vulnerabilities come from plugins — but that doesn't mean the platform is "bad," it means it needs to be managed correctly. The right call depends on your project's scale, your team's technical setup, and your long-term priorities.

If you're still unsure, the most practical approach is answering three questions: who will update the content, and how often? Is the site's performance tied directly to a business outcome (conversions, bookings, sales)? Is there custom business logic a standard plugin can't solve? The answers to those three questions usually settle the technology choice on their own.

Want to talk through which technology makes sense for your project? Book a call. Want to see how your current site performs? Try our free SEO checker.