A code-based website is a site whose pages, layouts, and behavior are defined directly in source code (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and optionally a framework or static site generator). The site is typically stored in a version control system like Git, built by an automated process, and deployed to a web host or CDN.

This is distinct from sites built primarily through a CMS’s visual editor, where the underlying code is generated and managed by the platform.

How a code-based site is typically built

A common workflow:

Source files (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Markdown content) are written and stored in a Git repository
A build process, manual or automated, produces deployable files
The output is uploaded to a web host or pushed to a CDN
Subsequent updates flow through the same Git → build → deploy pipeline

Modern code-based sites usually use a framework or static site generator (Astro, Next.js, Eleventy, Hugo, Gatsby, SvelteKit, etc.) rather than hand-writing every HTML file.

Common stacks

Pure static HTML/CSS/JS, smallest, simplest sites
Static site generator + Markdown, Astro + Markdown, Hugo + Markdown, Eleventy + Nunjucks
JavaScript framework with static export, Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit, Astro
Server-rendered framework, Rails, Django, Laravel, Phoenix
Headless CMS + static front-end, Contentful or Sanity feeding a static generator

Code-based does not imply any specific framework, language, or rendering model.

Code-based vs CMS-built sites

Aspect	Code-based	CMS-built
Where the site lives	Git repository (portable)	Platform database (often portable in part)
Editing model	Code editor, optionally with a CMS layered on	Visual editor, often WYSIWYG
Customization ceiling	Limited only by what code can do	Limited to what the platform supports
Editor accessibility for non-developers	Lower without additional tooling	Higher
Performance ceiling	Typically high; controlled by the developer	Set by platform architecture
Setup effort	Higher	Lower
Recurring cost	Hosting only (often low)	Subscription to platform
Lock-in	Low	Varies, often high on hosted platforms

Both approaches can produce excellent sites; the right fit depends on team capacity, budget, and how the site is expected to evolve.

Common reasons to choose code-based

Performance requirements that exceed what hosted CMS platforms can deliver
Need for custom integrations or non-standard functionality
Desire to avoid recurring platform fees over the site’s lifetime
Concern about portability and data ownership
Existing developer capacity or willingness to hire one

Common reasons to choose a CMS

No developer involvement available, now or ongoing
Editing autonomy for non-technical staff is the top priority
Tight budget for initial build (some CMS platforms have lower setup cost)
Site requires features the CMS provides out of the box (membership, ecommerce templates, scheduling)

Editing experience on code-based sites

Several patterns make code-based sites editable by non-developers:

Markdown files in the repo edited via a Git-aware tool (Forestry, Tina, Decap, GitHub web editor)
Headless CMS providing a familiar editor that the static site reads from at build time
Visual editing layers like Tina that overlay editing on a code-based site
Form-based admin panels generated from the content schema

Common misconceptions

“Code-based means no editor.” Code-based sites can have rich editorial workflows; the editor is just decoupled from the runtime.
“Code-based requires constant developer work.” Day-to-day content changes can be handled without a developer; structural changes do require code work.
“Code-based is always cheaper.” Initial build cost is often higher than a templated CMS site; recurring cost is usually lower.