"What part of SEO would be different from any of these CMSs vs WP? They make HTML, it's crawlable. CMSs have evolved a lot since the early days; it's no longer 2018 where some of these used JS or Flash (though those kinds of sites were interesting in their own ways too :-)). There's also managed WP hosting. Anyway, from my POV for the average content-y site, there's no fundamental SEO difference between mainstream CMSs, even static hosting with modern frameworks is fine."
"In general, looking at the web almanac for 2024 for CMS, 51% of sites use a CMS, only 8% of the top 1000 sites use a CMS, and WP has >35% of share (Wix just 2.8%), so statistically speaking there would be 4.4 sites in the top 1k from Wix (assuming my math is right, also, it's not a very useful statistic :-))."
All modern mainstream CMS platforms generate crawlable HTML and do not create fundamental SEO differences for typical content-focused sites. Static hosting with modern frameworks can be equally effective when HTML is served and navigation is solid. No inherent ranking boost exists for WordPress; managed hosting and platform features vary but rarely change core SEO outcomes. Technical implementations that prevent crawlability or poor navigation can harm performance. Web Almanac data shows widespread CMS usage overall, limited CMS presence among the top 1,000 sites, and substantial WordPress market share, underscoring that platform choice alone does not guarantee rankings.
Read at Search Engine Roundtable
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]