How to choose a platform for your B2B SaaS website

Here's a problem you didn't know you had: at some point, you're going to have to pick the platform your company's website runs on.

That decision can feel overwhelming. You're a marketer, not a developer. You're probably not a designer either. And suddenly you're the one choosing the tech stack for a website your team will likely use for the next five to ten years.

Don't worry. I'll walk you through what to look for, what the options are, and which platform I'd recommend for SaaS marketing teams.

Why this decision matters more than you think

Your website isn't just a page that sits there. It's where most marketing initiatives actually land. If performance marketing runs a campaign, they need a dedicated landing page to convert it. If product ships a new feature, product marketing wants that on the site, whether it's a blog post, a dedicated page, or both.

Content is probably the most obvious case: someone's always updating the blog, and the blog lives on your website too. Add experimenting with new messaging, email campaigns, and a dozen other things, and you start to see where this goes.

Your website is something you'll be updating constantly. That means operating it has to be simple and fast. Your team is moving quickly. Your website needs to keep up.

There's also SEO.

I started my career as an SEO specialist, and one of the recurring limitations I ran into was the platform itself getting in the way of technical SEO. That matters even more now with AEO, optimization for AI answer engines, which leans heavily on schema and structured data.

The platform you choose needs to let you customize that, and ideally do it at scale: you write the content, and metadescriptions, schema markup, and the rest get generated automatically instead of you doing it by hand every time.

Why listen to me

I've been on the inside of this problem for most of my career, not just as an observer but as the person responsible for making the website work.

I've been a SaaS marketer since 2017, in roles ranging from marketing engineer to Head of Marketing. Across that time I didn't just use different website platforms, I built on them and operated them day to day, which means I can talk about what actually breaks, not just what looks good in a demo.

One story that sums it up: my first Head of Marketing role was at a conversational commerce company for B2C brands, think car dealerships running WhatsApp agents.

I had a full team: performance, design, content, product marketing, all of them needing to touch the site, and the whole workflow crawled because of it.

I inherited a site built on WordPress with Elementor. It would go down without anyone touching anything, and there was no clean way to prevent it. We depended on our designer for changes. She was very good at her job, but Elementor wasn't her expertise, it was just the closest thing to it on the team. Simple changes could take two or three days.

So I brought in a web developer. That solved the skill gap, but created a new problem: she became a bottleneck herself. Looking back, that was my first mistake, hiring one more person instead of building something scalable my whole team could use. On top of that, it wasn't a good hire either, she didn't fit with the team, and she left a while later. After I moved on from the company, they hired another web designer, and from what I saw, it never quite clicked either.

Years later, a friend still at that company told me they'd switched platforms. Things had gotten noticeably better. They landed on the exact stack I recommend below.

Rule one: don't spread your content across platforms

When I started in marketing, our setup was already split: corporate site on WordPress, product site on Webflow, paid landing pages on Leadpages. Later we consolidated everything into Webflow, then hired an agency for setting up our Inbound strategy.

They built us a blog from scratch on WordPress, hardcoded into HubSpot for analytics, and charged a retainer for it. So the blog lived on WordPress while the rest of the site stayed on Webflow.

This is a bad setup. Splitting content across platforms makes everything harder to keep organized. When everything lives in one place, you have order and control. When it's spread out, critical processes like analytics get painful, because you're pulling data from two different systems.

This gets worse when one of your platforms isn't connected to the same stack. If your website is connected to Salesforce but your blog runs on Hubspot (true story btw), you end up moving data manually. That costs time and it's error-prone.

Rule one: one platform for everything.

Rule two: accept that marketers aren't coders

No-code and low-code platforms dominate the market for a reason. If you work in SaaS, it makes sense to lean into one of these tools, since they let you edit through a CMS or visually, without touching code. For someone who isn't technical, that's a real advantage.

There's a second reason this matters, beyond ease of use. Platforms like Webflow, Framer, or even WordPress already have a lot of web development fundamentals baked in. Building a site from scratch yourself, including with AI, means you're the one who has to get all of that right. No platform to lean on, no guardrails. That's a lot of attention to detail to carry alone.

The four options

Once you accept those two rules, you're usually looking at four platforms:

1. WordPress
2. Webflow
3. Framer
4. Building your own site with AI

Here's my experience with each, what worked, what didn't, and my verdict at the end.

WordPress

WordPress is the most well-known platform on this list, and it still has excellent use cases. If you're a blogger, WordPress can work great as a publishing platform. It has equivalents in that space, like Substack or Medium, but WordPress holds up fine for that kind of content.

For SaaS, I don't think it's the right call. You need more robust infrastructure: a site connected to a CRM, plugins for pop-ups, plugins for anything that drives conversion. And that infrastructure is exactly where things break, even when the site is built well.

Here's a real one: it's a Monday morning, and you find out half your blog got deindexed. This happened to us, and it wasn't a case of bad execution either.

We worked with a top-tier HubSpot partner agency, Spain-based with a LatAm presence, the kind that shows up at INBOUND with their own booth. They built the blog themselves. A plugin they'd developed for us broke during routine maintenance, changed a parameter, and overnight half our articles dropped out of the index. It happened on a Saturday, and we didn't catch it until Monday because, obviously, we weren't checking over the weekend.

Good agency, good build, good maintenance process. It still happened.

Another time, a plugin update broke our form, but only for some submissions. It took us a while to even notice. When your entire focus is converting traffic into leads, a broken form is critical.

That's the point: the platform itself has structural limitations that catch up with you even when everything is done right.

For a SaaS company, I wouldn't put anything on WordPress (it's never too late to move out from WordPress+Elementor, lol).

Framer

Framer is appealing because Framer sites tend to look great. Many people see it as a way to build something elegant and professional without much effort.

The building logic in Framer is very close to Figma, so designers pick it up instantly. The learning curve is basically zero. The problem is what happens under the hood. Because of how Framer is built, the code it generates for publishing isn't clean, and it's not easy to read at a technical level.

Why does that matter to you?

Because programmatic SEO is exactly where this hurts. Google prefers simple code over complex code, and in Framer you have zero control over what gets published. Even if you build the site carefully, with your team's workflow in mind, that structure still isn't the best fit for programmatic SEO. It's not a build-quality problem, it's a platform limitation.

If you're building a blog or content meant to rank, your content is at a disadvantage from day one. No matter how good it is, the technical SEO won't hold up. I wouldn't recommend it if you're trying to scale.

Building your own site with AI

Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should. It's not a question of whether AI can produce a good-looking site, it can. The problem is what happens after launch, day to day operations.

Day to day, you'll likely have three or four people on your team working on the same website. That requires development logic: knowing how to use GitHub, following good practices like branching, and a bunch of other things you shouldn't be spending your time learning.

If you're a first-time founder, building your site with AI and iterating with AI is fine. It solves the problem fast, and you don't need to scale yet. But if you're a marketing team with a real content strategy, a product strategy behind it, and a growing team, you need a platform that's easy to operate collectively. That's where AI-built sites fall short.

Webflow

Used badly, Webflow is a terrible tool too. I talk to plenty of SaaS marketers who already have their site on Webflow and still can't use it, simply because of how it was built.

I talked to a marketing lead this week going through exactly this. Her words: "if I wanted to add a new page, I have to hire a web developer." She knows enough HTML to be dangerous, as she put it, but the site wasn't built the old-school HTML way, so that knowledge is useless to her.

She can't even duplicate an existing page and swap the copy.

On top of that, hosting costs had gone up five months in a row just from storage, and nobody could tell her if that was normal or something to optimize. And their product team kept shipping new products faster than the nav could hold them.

But built well, Webflow lets you create infrastructure that non-technical people can actually run.

People can duplicate sections, build landing pages from scratch, push content that updates automatically across the site. Ship a new feature, and it shows up in the nav on its own.

One thing I'd strongly recommend: build on Client-First. In practice this means Collections doing the heavy lifting, nested and multi-referenced so a single content update ripples through everything that depends on it, like your nav pulling directly from your product Collection instead of being hardcoded.

For anything Webflow doesn't do natively, Finsweet Attributes covers most of it, filtering on the blog is the most common case. And for forms, I always add custom CSS. HubSpot's native embed works, but it never matches the rest of the site visually, and a form that looks bolted on reads as less trustworthy to whoever's filling it out.

The verdict

Webflow plus Client-First is, in my opinion, the best stack available right now for building websites that scale and that a marketing team can actually run.

Choosing the platform is step one. Building it right is the actual work.

One final note

Since 2024, I build websites specifically for SaaS marketing teams. My last project was a website for a company operating across five markets in two languages, with a CMS structure their team runs entirely on their own.

If your website is the bottleneck between your team and what marketing needs to ship, take a look at what I do or book a call.