The CMS conversation in publishing circles hasn’t changed much in five years, which is either reassuring or concerning depending on your perspective. WordPress still dominates, Ghost keeps winning converts among independent publishers, and Webflow continues to attract design-forward brands. What has changed is what publishers actually need from these platforms.

WordPress: Still the Default, For Good Reason

WordPress powers somewhere around 40% of the web, and a significant chunk of digital magazines. The ecosystem is unmatched. Need a paywall? There’s a plugin. Want to integrate with your print workflow? Someone’s built it. The problem isn’t capability, it’s complexity.

A typical publishing setup involves WooCommerce or a dedicated membership plugin, an email service integration, analytics beyond Google’s offering, and probably something for SEO. That’s before you consider caching, security, and backup solutions. It works, but it’s a lot to manage.

The hosting question matters more than it used to. Managed WordPress hosting from WP Engine or Kinsta costs $30-500 monthly depending on traffic, which is reasonable for a publication generating revenue. Cheap shared hosting will bite you when a piece goes viral.

Ghost: Purpose-Built for Publishers

Ghost was built specifically for publishers and it shows. The membership and subscription features are native, not bolted on. The editor is clean without being limiting. The email newsletter functionality is integrated, not an afterthought requiring a third-party service.

Where Ghost falls short is flexibility. If your publishing model doesn’t fit Ghost’s assumptions, you’re going to struggle. Want to run events alongside content? Build a job board? Integrate with a print fulfillment system? You’ll need custom development.

The pricing is straightforward but scales quickly. Ghost’s hosted option starts at $11 monthly for a hobby site, but a professional publication with 5,000 subscribers pays $50 monthly, and 50,000 subscribers jumps to $249. Self-hosting is possible but requires technical capability most editorial teams don’t have.

Webflow: When Design Drives the Decision

Webflow appeals to publishers who think of their site as a brand expression first and a content delivery system second. The visual editor gives designers control without touching code, which matters if your team includes creative talent but not developers.

The challenge for traditional publishers is that Webflow thinks about content differently. It’s built for marketing sites with occasional blog posts, not publications pushing multiple articles daily. The CMS has improved, but it still feels like managing content through a design tool rather than a publishing platform.

Webflow’s hosting is premium-priced. A site with moderate traffic might pay $29-212 monthly. For that cost, you get solid performance and don’t think about infrastructure. But you’re locked into their ecosystem in ways you’re not with WordPress.

What Publishers Actually Need

The CMS question usually comes up when something isn’t working. The site’s too slow. The workflow’s frustrating. The costs are climbing. Before switching platforms, it’s worth examining whether the problem is actually the CMS or how it’s configured.

Most publishing problems are workflow and strategy issues, not technical limitations. A team experienced with WordPress will likely get better results than switching to Ghost and learning new systems. Similarly, working with specialists who understand publishing technology can solve issues without the disruption of migration.

The boring answer is often the right one: stick with what your team knows unless there’s a compelling reason to change. New platforms promise simplicity but introduce different complexity. The grass isn’t necessarily greener, it’s just different grass.

Making the Decision

If you’re starting fresh, Ghost makes sense for a straightforward subscription publication. WordPress is the safer choice if you anticipate needing flexibility or third-party integrations. Webflow works if design is paramount and you have budget for premium hosting.

For established publications considering migration, the question is cost versus disruption. Moving platforms is expensive in time, money, and risk. Unless your current setup is fundamentally broken, incremental improvements usually deliver better returns than starting over.

The CMS market will continue fragmenting. New options appear regularly, each promising to solve problems the established platforms supposedly ignore. Most don’t gain traction because switching costs are high and the incumbents are good enough. That’s likely to remain true for the foreseeable future.