An open source website builder gives you the code for free, but you still run the site: hosting, updates, security patches and backups are yours. Pick by how much you want to run, from a full CMS on a web host to a desktop app that publishes static files, then check the licence if you'll resell a customised build.
The most common mistake with open source website builders is reading "free download" as "free website". The software is free to download, but somebody still has to rent the server, apply the updates, patch the security holes and keep a backup that works when it's needed. Usually that somebody is you.
So this list isn't sorted by features. It's sorted by how much of the running you take on, from a classic CMS on a web host down to a desktop app that turns your site into plain files. The ten tools are in no particular order within that, and each one shows its licence in the table, because the licence matters more than most people expect.
Free code, unfree upkeep: what lands on your plate
Every tool here is free to download and use. None of them is free of effort. Once you install one, you're the hosting company, the IT department and the night watchman. That means choosing and renting a web host, applying core and plugin updates when they come out, watching for security fixes, and running backups you've tested at least once by restoring one.
The licence is the second thing people skip. These ten use three families. GPL tools ask you to share your changes if you distribute the software to others. AGPL goes further: if you run a modified version as a service people use over the web, you must offer them the source code too. MIT asks for almost nothing beyond keeping the copyright notice. For a small business running an unmodified install, the practical difference is small. For an agency building a customised version and handing it to clients, or running it for them, read the licence file before you quote the job.
Four set-ups, from a full server to a laptop app
A classic CMS on a web host
WordPress, Joomla, Drupal and Concrete CMS all want a web server, a database and regular updates. The version you want from the first of those is the downloadable software at wordpress.org, a different thing from the hosted wordpress.com service, which runs the site for you. Of these four, the third asks the most of you at setup, while the fourth leans hard toward editing on the page itself.
Flat-file and static, no database
Grav and Bludit store content as files instead of in a database, which means one less thing to back up and break. Publii goes further: you write on your own computer and upload finished static files, so there's no admin panel on the live server to attack. The trade-off is that editing sits on one machine unless you set up a workaround for a second person.
Visual builders you can host or let them host
Webstudio and Silex give you a drag-and-design canvas closer to the hosted builders, with the option to self-host. The first publishes to its own cloud or exports for your server; the second, per its site, includes hosting. Both use AGPL, so the source-sharing duty applies if you run a modified copy as a service.
Publishing first
Ghost is built for blogs, newsletters and memberships rather than brochure or shop sites. It can be self-hosted or run on its makers' hosted service, and you'll pick a very different route depending on which you choose.
Type and licence for all ten
| Tool | Type and licence | Good for |
|---|---|---|
| Bludit | Flat-file CMS, MIT | A small site or blog with no database |
| Concrete CMS | Self-hosted CMS, MIT | Editing pages in place, point and click |
| Drupal | Self-hosted CMS, GPL | Complex, structured sites with developer help |
| Ghost | Publishing platform, MIT | Blogs and email newsletters with memberships |
| Grav | Flat-file CMS, MIT | Markdown content and an API, no database |
| Joomla | Self-hosted CMS, GPL | Sites that lean on add-on extensions |
| Publii | Desktop static CMS, GPL | Static sites written and built on your desktop |
| Silex | Visual builder, AGPL | No-code static sites with dynamic data |
| Webstudio | Visual builder, AGPL | Visual design with cloud or self-hosted publishing |
| WordPress | Self-hosted CMS, GPL | Blogs and business sites on your own hosting |
The ten builders, in no particular order
Bludit
Best for: Small websites or blogs kept as JSON files, with no database to install or configure and Markdown or HTML supported, per the vendor. A separate PRO edition exists.
Concrete CMS
Best for: Teams where developers and editors share one system, with point-and-click site building and editing done on the page itself, as the vendor describes it.
Drupal
Best for: Larger, structured websites built on a project anyone can download, use and share, with a ready-made distribution aimed at easier starts. Expect the heaviest setup here.
Ghost
Best for: Writers and publishers running a blog and email newsletter with memberships built in. It's made for publishing rather than brochure or shop sites.
Grav
Best for: Developers who'd rather keep content in Markdown files than in a database, with a first-party REST API on top, according to the vendor.
Joomla
Best for: Websites and online applications that grow through extensions, drawing on a large library the project says is mostly free.
Publii
Best for: Writing a site on your own computer and publishing static files to any host, with no database, PHP or admin panel on the live site (vendor claim).
Silex
Best for: Designers after a libre visual editor for static sites with dynamic data, CMS integration and hosting included, from the OW2 open source community.
Want AI doing the heavy lifting in your marketing?
I build the systems that handle the boring 80 percent, so you get your week back. Done properly, with the human kept in.
Webstudio
Best for: Visual design work using every CSS property, fed from an outside CMS or data source, then published to the vendor's cloud or exported to host yourself.
WordPress
Best for: Blogs, business sites and apps on publishing software you download and run on your own hosting. This is the .org software, separate from the hosted .com service.
Self-hosting or a hosted builder: which way round?
If you've never managed a web server and don't want to learn, an open source CMS on bargain shared hosting is a risk, not a saving. A hosted drag-and-drop builder is the fairer comparison, and our round-ups of alternatives to the big drag-and-drop builders and other hosted site builders cover that side. If you want something even simpler, there's a guide to free AI website builders for beginners with no coding.
If you want to own the files, move hosts whenever you like and never be locked into one company's editor, self-hosting earns its keep. Just plan for the hours, not only the hosting.
Plain advice on choosing which one to install
Start with what the site has to do. A blog with a newsletter belongs on a publishing-first tool. A brochure site that rarely changes is happiest as flat files or static output, because there's so little to attack or update. A site with many editors, forms and plugins needs a classic CMS, and the biggest of those has the largest pool of developers and themes if you ever need help.
Then be honest about who'll do the updates. If the answer is "nobody", pick static output or a managed host for the software you choose. And if you're an agency, read the licence file before you customise anything you plan to run for clients.
Do you make an open source website builder or CMS? Tool makers can ask to be considered for a featured place on this list.
Want your tool on this list? Featured spots and reviews here are paid partnerships. Here's how to partner with me.
Frequently asked questions
Is an open source website builder free?
The software is free to download and use. Running a site still needs hosting, a domain, updates and backups, and most of those fall to you or someone you hire.
What's the difference between GPL, AGPL and MIT for a website?
GPL asks you to share changes if you distribute the software. AGPL also covers modified versions you run as a web service, so users must be able to get the source. MIT has no sharing duty beyond keeping the copyright notice. For an unmodified site the difference is small.
Do I need a database to run an open source website?
Not always. Flat-file systems store content as files, and static tools publish plain HTML, so there's no database to run. A classic CMS does need one.
Can a non-developer run a self-hosted website?
Yes, with a managed host that handles installs and updates, or with a static or flat-file tool that has little to maintain. Without either, expect to learn some server basics.
Who looks after security on an open source site?
You do, or whoever you hire. The projects publish fixes, but nobody applies them to your server unless you, your host or your developer does it.
Can I move from a hosted builder to an open source one?
Usually, but expect to rebuild the design. Content such as posts and pages can often be exported, while layouts made in a hosted editor rarely carry across.
