NewBase
Get in touch

Base44 to Astro

Migrate from Base44 to Astro

Base44 may already be doing the hard part: the authentication, the data, the backend functions and the integrations. A migration to Astro does not have to replace any of that. The useful question is whether the public front end still needs to be an application too.

Start a project

A migration like this usually takes 1–3 weeks

What actually migrates.

What you have What happens Why
Public pages Rebuild Made again in Astro. The old version is a reference rather than something that can be imported. The existing front end is the reference for the Astro build. Public routes are rebuilt as deliberate pages and components rather than regenerated as another application.
Front-end components Reconfigure The same thing, set up again. Nothing is recreated, but it has to be pointed at the new site by hand. The exported code is real source material. Interactive components may survive largely intact; content-heavy ones are usually simpler to rebuild without the application runtime they no longer need.
Publishing content Move Comes across as it is. The content survives the move and the work is transporting it, not remaking it. Copy, resources, testimonials and FAQs move into whichever content model the marketing site uses.
Application data Stays put Does not move, on purpose. The old platform keeps this because it is the thing it is good at, and the new front end reads from it. User records and genuinely dynamic product data do not need to move because the front end did. Astro reads Base44 through its SDK where the public site needs that data.
Authentication Stays put Does not move, on purpose. The old platform keeps this because it is the thing it is good at, and the new front end reads from it. The marketing site should not acquire authentication because the application has it. Product routes keep using Base44 auth while the public routes stay public.
URLs Reconfigure The same thing, set up again. Nothing is recreated, but it has to be pointed at the new site by hand. Every known public address is inventoried, preserved where practical and deliberately redirected where the routing changes on purpose.

Where the line falls.

After the migration

Astro

The public site

  • Marketing and campaign pages
  • Documentation and resources
  • The content model, in collections or a CMS
  • Every address search already knows

The seam

The Base44 SDK

  • Entities read where a public page needs them
  • The signed-in handoff, at the product's door
  • One source of truth, never a second copy

Base44

The application

  • Authentication and accounts
  • The database and its records
  • Backend functions and integrations
  • Everything behind the login
Nothing about the application moves. The public site stops being part of it and starts reading from it.

Where this migration gets complicated.

  1. 01

    Deciding where the application ends

    The front end, the authentication, the database and the backend functions all live in one Base44 project, and that does not mean they should all move. The planning work is naming which routes are really documents and which are genuinely part of the product.

  2. 02

    Keeping one source of truth

    If Base44 stays the backend, product data stays there and Astro reads it rather than holding a copy. Publishing content can move into a CMS or content collections, but application records must not quietly fork into two systems that disagree.

How the migration works.

  1. Audit

    Every public route, authenticated route, entity, backend function and integration, sorted into website and application.

  2. Rebuild

    The public front end becomes Astro components, with Base44 connected through its SDK where the pages need it.

  3. Migrate

    Publishing content into the new model, addresses preserved or redirected, and the Base44 services in use stay live.

  4. Hand over

    The repository, the migration map and documentation written for somebody who was not here.

What is included.

Every migration includes the front-end rebuild, the content and asset move, the integration work, URL coverage, QA and post-launch monitoring. What changes with the platform is how hard each one is, which is what the rest of the page is for.

  • Design rebuild

    Rebuilt as components, not approximated.

  • Responsive development

    Desktop, tablet and mobile, built and checked.

  • CMS architecture

    Collections and fields mapped before build.

  • Content migration

    Migrated and checked against the source.

  • Asset migration

    Collected, compressed and rehosted.

  • Forms and integrations

    Tested through to the final record.

  • URL coverage

    Every known public address preserved or deliberately redirected.

  • Metadata and canonicals

    Preserved wherever possible.

  • Search footprint preservation

    URLs inventoried before and checked after.

  • Pre-launch QA

    Forms, templates and old URLs verified.

  • Post-launch support

    One week of indexing and traffic checks included.

Search visibility can move during a migration. The goal is to preserve what search engines already understand, and to catch what changed quickly after launch.

And it is yours at the end. The repository sits in your organization rather than mine, the handoff documentation is written for somebody who was not here, and nothing about the project requires me: another developer or your own team can operate it.

Separate publishing content from application data.

This project has two different kinds of data in one place, and they want different homes. Application records stay in Base44, where the product reads them through the SDK. Copy, resources and FAQs want a content model: collections beside the code where a developer publishes, a headless CMS such as Sanity where marketing does, or the component itself where the page changes twice a year. Getting that split wrong is the mistake people feel a year later, so it is decided before the rebuild rather than after it.

  1. 01

    Content Collections, in the repository

    For a team that publishes rarely and is happy in a pull request. The content is files beside the code, typed and checked at build time, with no service to pay for and nothing to keep running. It stops suiting you the day somebody outside engineering needs to publish without help.

  2. 02

    A headless CMS, such as Sanity

    For a team that publishes regularly, or where the person writing is not the person deploying. Editors get a real interface, the model is explicit, and the site reads it at build time. It is another system to configure and pay for, and the modeling is the part that decides whether editors can work on their own.

  3. 03

    No CMS at all

    For a site whose pages change a few times a year. Everything lives in components, changes go through the same review as any other change, and there is no editorial layer to maintain. Honest for a small site, and the wrong answer the moment a blog is added.

Content Collections against a headless CMS, and how the choice is made.

A migration is not finished when the new site looks right.

These are acceptance criteria rather than features. The codebase, the site inventory and the connected systems are each checked against what you started with, and the answer is a count rather than an opinion.

  • 01 Codebase

    A codebase your team owns

    Components, routes and styles rebuilt deliberately, not cleaned up from exported markup.

    Verified by Repository and component structure

  • 02 Site

    Everything accounted for

    Collections, content, metadata and existing addresses checked against the source.

    Verified by Source inventory and migration checks

  • 03 Systems

    Handoffs that actually arrive

    Forms, analytics and CRM checked at their destination rather than at the button.

    Verified by Submissions, events and records

The migration is complete when these pass, not when the homepage looks right.

The figures above are an illustration of the report's shape. Yours are counted from your own site.

See everything included in a migration

Keep the agent workflow. Make the architecture explicit.

Base44 already makes AI-driven development part of the workflow, and moving the front end to Astro does not mean giving that up. What changes is that future front-end work happens against explicit routes, components, a content model and project instructions in the repository, while Base44 keeps the backend responsibilities it already handles well.

The important part is not that an agent can write code. It is that the project is structured well enough for its changes to be understood, reviewed and reversed.

  • Marketing

    Editor or AI assistant CMS Preview Publish

    On the headless CMS answer above. Choose content collections instead and this lane runs through the repository and the review with the developers, which is exactly why that decision comes before the rebuild rather than after it.

  • Developers

    Branch Components and routes Review Deploy

    The same workflow as any other repository, which is what makes a second developer able to pick it up.

  • Coding agents

    Project instructions Branch Review Deploy

    Against the real repository, under the same review a person gets. An agent is only as safe as the documentation and the tests it is working against, which is why those are deliverables rather than extras.

Integrations

Changing the frontend doesn't mean changing your stack.

The site is one part of a marketing stack, and a migration that leaves the rest of it broken has not finished. Each of these is a deliberate integration with a guide behind it, rather than a script pasted into a header somewhere.

All 24 integration guides

Coming from somewhere else?

Or weigh Base44 against Astro before deciding

Reach out and see if we are a good fit.

Get in touch

Currently booking two to four weeks out.