Wondering if a JAMstack site (Astro or Next.js plus headless CMS) is cheaper long term than WordPress.

JAMstack has lower hosting and plugin costs but higher build and maintenance costs in dev hours. WordPress is the reverse: for SMBs without an in-house dev, WP is often cheaper. With a dev already on payroll the balance shifts toward JAMstack. The obvious choice is not always the cheap one.

Try this first

1. 1Run a 3-year TCO, not just build cost. For WP: hosting (managed 30-100 per month), licences (Yoast Premium, ACF Pro, Rocket combined 300-500 per year), updates and backups (50-200 per month or inside a maintenance contract).
2. 2For JAMstack: hosting (Vercel or Netlify, free to 20 per month typically), CMS (Sanity or Contentful, 0 to 300 per month depending on plan and volume), no plugin licences. Hosting plus CMS is lower, but maintaining code yourself takes dev hours.
3. 3Build cost differs: a solid WP site takes 40-80 hours with theme customisation. A comparable JAMstack site is more like 80-160 hours because you build components and CMS schema yourself. That gap closes on site number two, you'll have a reusable component library.
4. 4Maintenance is fundamentally different: WP needs monthly plugin and core updates with regression tests. JAMstack needs periodic dependency upgrades and framework major bumps (Next.js 16, Astro 5). Lower frequency, higher complexity.
5. 5Security: JAMstack has no plugin supply-chain risk and no wp-login.php attacks. Attack surface of a statically generated site is minimal. With WP a WAF and hardening are mandatory parts of the TCO.
6. 6Decision: no dev and no budget for an agency maintenance contract, stick with WP. With a dev (in-house or steady freelance), pick JAMstack and build a reusable base for future projects.

None of the above fits?

Describe your situation below. We pass your input plus the steps you already saw to our AI and return tailored next-step advice. If it's too risky to DIY, we'll say so.