Which website builders let you export your code?

Of the popular website builders, self-hosted WordPress gives you everything, Webflow exports a static copy of your pages on paid plans (without the CMS working or forms processing), and Wix, Squarespace and Framer don't export site code at all. For Framer, the practical route is to convert the published site into a code project with a third-party converter such as Deframer, or to rebuild it. Content exports (CSV, XML) exist on most platforms, but content is not the same as the pages that display it.

What each builder offers changes over time, so treat this as a map and check each vendor's current help pages before you plan around it. Deframer is an independent tool and is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by Framer or any builder named here.

Why "export" means three different things

When people ask whether they can export a site, they usually mean one of three things, and builders support them very differently:

1. Content export. The text, images and records: blog posts, CMS items, products. Usually CSV, JSON or XML.
2. Static code export. HTML, CSS, JavaScript and assets for the pages, which you can host as files. Dynamic features that ran on the builder's servers stop working.
3. A maintainable codebase. A project in a framework, with components and routes, that a developer can keep building on.

A builder can be generous on the first and offer nothing on the other two. Decide which one you need before comparing.

The comparison

The rows below explain each one.

WordPress: everything, because you run it

Self-hosted WordPress is open source. Your theme, plugins, uploads and database are on a server you control, so there is nothing to export: you already have it. The built-in exporter writes posts, pages and other content as XML, which another WordPress install (or other tools) can import. WordPress.com, the hosted service, varies by plan; check its current documentation if that's what you use.

The trade-off is that you run it: updates, backups and security are yours. Framer vs WordPress compares the two in detail.

Webflow: a static export with limits

Webflow can export a site's HTML, CSS, JavaScript and assets on paid Workspace plans. You get files you can upload to any static host, and the pages look as they did. Webflow's help center lists what the export doesn't carry: CMS content and functionality, form submission processing, site search, ecommerce, user accounts and password protection, among others (Webflow Help). CMS collections can be exported separately as CSV.

So the export is a good snapshot and a good starting point for hand-written code, but not a project that keeps working like the hosted site. A CMS-driven blog, for example, exports as a template page; the posts themselves come as CSV that you wire up yourself.

Wix and Squarespace: content only

Neither Wix nor Squarespace offers a code export of the site. Squarespace can export some content, such as blog posts, in a format other platforms import. Moving away from either means rebuilding the design somewhere else and bringing content over through whatever export or copy-paste the platform allows. Check their current help pages for exactly what is exportable, since this changes.

Framer: no export, but a published site to convert

Framer has no code or HTML export. Its data-portability article says CMS content can be exported with plugins into structured formats such as CSV or JSON (Framer Help). That gives you records, not pages.

Because a published Framer site runs on React, its pages can be converted into a real codebase. Can you export code from Framer? covers the four routes in detail: rebuild by hand, save an HTML snapshot, use a converter, or put a reverse proxy in front.

Deframer is a converter. It reads the files your published site serves and writes a TypeScript project:

• Frameworks: Next.js (default), TanStack Start, Astro, React Router or Vite (a static site with no server).
• What comes across: every page as a route with its metadata, components with CSS modules and their variants and hover states, colour and text styles, CMS collections as a schema plus JSON records, native forms as API routes that deliver to a webhook, redirects, robots.txt and the sitemap, and animations on the open-source motion library.
• What doesn't: the Framer editor. After converting, you edit code, not a canvas. Code components and third-party embeds come across as the site's own code, not rewritten.

Converting is free. Downloading is for your own site, or one whose owner allows it: 1 credit with site verification, or 10 without after confirming ownership or permission. See pricing.

So in the table's terms, Framer plus a converter lands in the third column, a maintainable codebase, which is further than any builder's own export goes. The price is that you leave the visual editor behind.

Does an export make the builder a better choice?

Only if you'll use it. Questions to ask before choosing a builder on its export:

• Will a developer ever own this site? If not, an export you'll never run is insurance, not a feature.
• Is the CMS the important part? Then content export matters more than code export, and every builder above has some form of it.
• Do you need server features after leaving? Forms, search, accounts and shops need a backend whichever builder you leave. A static export doesn't bring them.
• How would you host the export? Static files are easy; see hosting a static export.

Framer alternatives when you want to own your code ranks the options by how much you own, if ownership is your main reason.

A practical rule

• Need the site's code someday, and want a visual builder now: WordPress or Webflow keep more doors open; Framer works too, through conversion.
• Need only your content to be portable: any of them, as long as you export regularly.
• Already on Framer: you don't need to switch builders to own code. Back up a Framer site explains how to keep a code copy alongside your Framer site.