NewBase
Get in touch

Framer to Astro

Migrate from Framer to Astro

Framer is the fastest way to get a designed site live, and that is not a backhanded compliment. It stops fitting when the site needs behavior the canvas cannot express, when the people who need to change it are not the people who can open it, or when the team wants the front end in version control alongside everything else they ship.

Start a project

A migration like this usually takes 2–4 weeks

What actually migrates.

What you have What happens Why
Page layouts Rebuild Made again in Astro. The old version is a reference rather than something that can be imported. Rebuilt from the rendered page and the design, because there is nothing to export. What this buys is that the structure gets decided rather than inherited.
CMS collections Move Comes across as it is. The content survives the move and the work is transporting it, not remaking it. Framer collections export as CSV, which carries the fields and loses the relationships between them. The model is designed on the far side and the rows are loaded into it.
Code components Reconfigure The same thing, set up again. Nothing is recreated, but it has to be pointed at the new site by hand. Already React, so the logic is more portable than anything built on the canvas. Each one is reviewed for its dependencies and either kept as a React island inside Astro or rewritten to fit the new frontend.
Effects and page transitions Rebuild Made again in Astro. The old version is a reference rather than something that can be imported. Each one becomes a decision: written in CSS, written with a motion library, or dropped. The ones that existed because the canvas made them easy are usually dropped.
URLs Reconfigure The same thing, set up again. Nothing is recreated, but it has to be pointed at the new site by hand. Existing paths are inventoried and preserved wherever possible, and anything that has to change gets an explicit redirect rather than disappearing at launch. Framer addresses are usually clean already, which is the part most worth protecting.

What the canvas knew, written down.

Framer sets behavior on individual elements at each breakpoint, which is exactly why the sites look right and exactly why there is nothing to read. Rebuilt, the same arrangement comes from one rule that every section obeys, which is slower to write once and much faster to change forever after.

The same section, at two widths

Desktop

3 across

Phone

1 across

One rule grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fit, minmax(16rem, 1fr))

On the canvas each of these blocks was positioned at each breakpoint, one at a time. Here both arrangements come from the line underneath, and a seventh block obeys it without anybody opening anything.

Where this migration gets complicated.

  1. 01

    There is no frontend codebase to migrate

    Webflow hands over HTML, CSS and JavaScript, and WordPress hands over a database. Framer hands over the CMS as CSV and nothing else, so the front end is rebuilt from the rendered site rather than converted from a download. Budget for it as a build, not a conversion.

  2. 02

    Breakpoint behavior is per element, not per system

    Framer lets a designer set behavior on individual elements at each breakpoint, which is why the sites look right and why there is no stylesheet to read. The responsive rules have to be observed at each width and rewritten as a system, which takes longer than reading CSS would.

How the migration works.

  1. Audit

    Every page, collection and code component read off the live site, because there is no project file.

  2. Rebuild

    Layouts become components, per-element breakpoints become one responsive system, and the React components are ported or rewritten.

  3. Migrate

    Collections out as CSV into the new model, references reconnected, assets rehosted and every path kept.

  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.

Leaving Framer does not have to mean handing every edit to a developer.

This is the real question behind the CMS decision, and the answer is that it depends on what you choose rather than on Astro. A headless CMS such as Sanity gives editors an interface, a preview and a publish button, and keeps the front end in code. Content collections put the content in the repository, which is cheaper and only suits a team happy in a pull request. Choosing wrong is the mistake people feel a year later, so it gets 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

Built for people and agents to work on.

Moving to code changes how the site can be maintained. Marketing works through the CMS. Developers work against components and routes. A coding agent works against the same repository, the same documentation and the same review as a developer.

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 Framer against Astro before deciding

Reach out and see if we are a good fit.

Get in touch

Currently booking two to four weeks out.