Why we reconsidered our existing platform
For several years, Webflow was an important foundation for our website and many client projects. The platform allowed us to develop websites efficiently, create visually sophisticated experiences and manage content without complex technical infrastructure. Our own website also grew steadily on this foundation.
Over time, however, our requirements evolved. What began as a relatively straightforward agency website became a comprehensive platform featuring service pages, projects and regularly published articles in German, French and English. At the same time, our services increasingly shifted towards digital strategy, custom development and long-term platform architecture.
This raised a fundamental question: Was our existing technology still the right choice for the years ahead?
Rather than sticking with our existing platform out of habit, we decided to reassess our requirements.
Choosing Astro and Sanity was a strategic decision
Our evaluation was not about adopting the latest or most popular technology. What mattered was how we wanted to operate and develop our website over the long term.
Three requirements were particularly important:
- Greater technical independence: The frontend, content management and infrastructure should no longer depend entirely on a single platform.
- More flexible content management: Projects, articles and service pages needed to be structured and managed consistently across multiple languages.
- Long-term extensibility: New features, integrations and page types should be possible without requiring another fundamental platform migration.
With Astro as our frontend and Sanity as our headless CMS, we found an architecture that met these requirements. Astro handles the technical presentation of the website, while Sanity manages the content independently of how it is displayed.
We didn't change technology because we needed a new website. We changed it because we wanted to develop our website differently in the long term.
This distinction matters. A platform migration should never be an end in itself. It should address specific requirements.
What the migration involved
Moving from Webflow to Astro and Sanity involves much more than exporting content. Existing CMS structures need to be redesigned, content migrated and the website rebuilt within a new frontend architecture. For our trilingual website, it was particularly important to preserve the relationships between content and its different language versions.
Search engine optimisation was another central consideration. Our website had built up organic visibility over several years, and we didn't want to put that at unnecessary risk. Preserving URL structures, metadata, internal links and hreflang relationships was therefore a priority throughout the migration.
The effort involved in such a transition should not be underestimated. An independent architecture provides greater freedom, but it also brings additional responsibility for development, deployment and maintenance. Editorial workflows need to be carefully designed as well.
When does an independent architecture make sense?
Not every business website needs Astro and a headless CMS. For a relatively straightforward marketing website managed primarily by a communications team, Webflow may still be the more efficient choice. Its integrated environment reduces technical dependencies between systems and simplifies many everyday tasks.
A modular architecture becomes particularly interesting when content grows more complex, multiple systems need to work together or a website gradually evolves into a broader digital platform. Independent content management can help organisations avoid replacing their entire CMS whenever significant changes are required.
However, relying less on a single platform does not automatically mean less complexity or lower costs. Astro and Sanity require development, integration and ongoing maintenance. Their long-term value also depends on whether an organisation has the necessary technical expertise internally or works with a reliable development partner.
Technical independence is not a goal in itself. It makes sense when the flexibility gained justifies the additional investment over time.
What we learned from the migration
Our new website gives us greater control over technical development and more flexible content management across three languages. The experience also reinforced an important principle: platform decisions should not be based solely on the features available today.
For our clients, this doesn't mean we'll automatically recommend Astro over Webflow. Instead, we place even greater emphasis on editorial needs, integrations, maintenance, SEO and future development requirements before recommending a technology.
Our conclusion: The right platform isn't necessarily the one that lets you build a website the fastest. It's the one that best supports the organisation as it evolves over the coming years.
Explore the technical implementation in our ultraperfekt website case study.
