Every Fighter Profile
One profile per builder, all judged on the same five rounds. No round is weighted, no favourites, and every score is traceable back to published pricing and documented capability.
The website builder reviews on this site are fighter profiles. Same five rounds, same evidence standard, same arithmetic — because a review that scores one platform generously and the next one harshly tells you nothing at all. A profile answers two questions: what is this builder genuinely good at, and what does it cost you to accept its weaknesses.
The profile cards sit above. Below is the short read on each one — the score, the single thing that decides it, and where to go for the full round-by-round.
How a profile is scored
Ease, Design, Value, Power, Support. Each round scored 0 to 10, the overall taken as the mean of the five to one decimal, nothing weighted. A profile uses exactly the same card a matchup does, which is the point: a builder cannot score one way alone and a different way in the ring. If you want the definitions and the evidence rules in full, they are on the scoring methodology page.
Two rules keep the numbers honest. Every figure quoted is a published one, checked against the vendor's live pricing at the date on the profile — never a remembered price and never a number lifted from a third-party page that has not been updated. And every profile has to name a real weakness with a real cost attached. A review that cannot finish the sentence "this will hurt you when…" has not done the work.
The rounds lean on different evidence, and it is worth knowing which. Ease and Design are judgements about the product as documented and demonstrated — the editor model, what the templates actually look like, how much of the layout work is already done for you. Value is arithmetic: the plan a real buyer needs, at the billing cycle they will really use, with renewal terms and transaction fees added in. Power is a feature inventory, checked against the vendor's own limits. Support is the published channels and hours, taken at face value and then tested against what customers report.
A profile also declines to do certain things. It does not invent load times or performance benchmarks for a builder's output, because those depend far more on the site than on the platform. It does not print a figure the vendor has not published — where sources disagree, the review says they disagree instead of picking whichever number reads best. And the score is settled before anything else on the page is written, so a commission cannot soften a verdict after the fact.
Squarespace — 7.7
The design champion, and it is not close. Design 9.5, Ease 8.5, and roughly 194 templates with real art direction behind them. What drags the overall down is everything after the site is built: Value 6.5 after a July 2026 price rise of up to 26 percent that arrived with no announcement, Power 7.0 for a closed ecosystem, and Support 7.0 for a company with no phone line at all. The bottom line: you are paying for taste, and you cannot take the result anywhere else. Read the full Squarespace review.
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission — it never moves a ranking.
Webflow — 7.5
The highest Power score on the site at 9.5, and the lowest Ease at 4.5 — the widest split any builder here posts between two rounds. The Designer is a graphical interface onto the CSS box model, so what you can build is genuinely uncapped, and what you must learn first is genuinely a language. May 2026 collapsed five site plans into three, which repriced the entry point and broke most of the pricing tables published elsewhere. Worth it if you build sites for a living; punishing if you do not. Read the full Webflow review.
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission — it never moves a ranking.
Weebly — 4.8
The lowest score on the card, and the only profile written as an obituary rather than a recommendation. Ease is still a genuine 8.5 — Weebly's block editor was always the easiest thing in the category. Everything else collapses: Design 5.0 on themes that look their age, Value 3.0, Power 3.5, Support 4.0. Square is winding the product down in 67 countries with a hard deletion date of 26 December 2026, and even the unaffected markets sit in maintenance mode with no new features and no mobile app. This one is a migration guide with a deadline. Read the full Weebly review.
Create.net — 6.8
The outsider on the card, and the one that wins a round nobody expected. Support 8.5 — the joint-highest score any fighter posts on this site — because every Create.net customer gets a named UK account manager, including on the £9.99 entry plan. Ease 7.5 is respectable, Design 6.0 is the honest ceiling, and Power and Value both sit at 6.0. It earns a niche recommendation rather than a general one, and the niche is specific: UK small businesses who would rather phone a person than read a forum thread. Read the full Create.net review.
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission — it never moves a ranking.
Duda — 7.4
Power 8.5 and Support 7.5 make Duda the strongest platform here for anyone building sites for other people. White-label rebranding, client management, a multi-site dashboard, site export on Agency and above, and phone support once you are paying for it. Ease 6.0 is the price of that: the editing surface is fine, but the platform wrapped around it is structured like enterprise software. Value 7.0 reflects the same thing — a solo user pays agency overhead for tooling they will never open. Read the full Duda review.
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission — it never moves a ranking.
Why some famous builders only ever fight in the opposing corner
Wix scores 8.3 here. Hostinger's builder scores 7.7. Both numbers are higher than most of the profiles above, and neither builder has a profile page. That is deliberate, and it is worth explaining rather than hiding.
This site is built around bouts. A fighter earns a profile when a full head-to-head on it has already been fought and scored, because the comparison is what keeps the number honest — it is very easy to write a generous review of a builder in isolation and much harder to defend that generosity when a rival is standing opposite. Wix and Hostinger are scored on exactly the same five rounds, and those scores are published where they belong: inside the matchups. You will find both on the full website builder comparison card, with the tale of the tape and the round-by-round intact.
The same logic applies to Framer, which posts a 7.5 and a Design 9.5 that ties the two best on the card. Its scores are argued out where they can be tested, in the Webflow vs Framer bout. A score with no opponent behind it is just an opinion with a decimal point.
What that leaves is a deliberately small roster judged on one card. It grows slowly, because every fighter added has to be priced, opened and put against somebody before a number goes on the page. That is a worse way to fill a review library and a much harder one to argue with.