Framer vs Webflow redirects: the plan gate that decides a migration
Framer's redirects are a Pro feature, so a site migrated onto Basic cannot redirect a single old URL. Webflow has no such gate. The two also run their rules in opposite orders, which is the mistake that catches anyone who has used both.
There is one fact here that decides whether a migration onto Framer is safe, and it is not on any comparison page we could find. Framer's redirects are a Pro feature. The Basic plan does not have them, which means a site migrated onto Basic cannot redirect a single old URL, and every link and ranking pointing at the old structure lands on a 404.
Webflow has no equivalent gate. Redirects there need a paid Site plan, and every paid Site plan has them. So the two platforms differ on the thing a migration depends on, and they differ again on how the rules behave once you have them. Both sets of facts below come from the vendors' own pages, read on 16 September 2026.
The order the rules run in, which is inverted between them
Webflow executes redirects in the order they were added, oldest first, and that order cannot be changed. Framer lets you reorder rules by dragging and dropping to set priority. This is the difference that catches people who have worked on both, because the safe habit on one platform is the dangerous habit on the other.
On Webflow the consequence is that a broad wildcard entered early swallows every specific rule entered after it, silently, with no error. On Framer the same mistake is recoverable in ten seconds by dragging the specific rule above the wildcard. So the Webflow discipline is to enter exceptions first and wildcards last, and to treat the entry order as permanent. We set that out in full in how Webflow 301 redirects actually behave.
Side by side
| Behaviour | Webflow | Framer |
|---|---|---|
| Plan needed | Any paid Site plan | Pro. Basic has no redirects at all |
| Execution order | Order added, oldest first, fixed | Drag and drop to set priority |
| Wildcard syntax | (.*) captured, referenced %1 | * captured, referenced :1 |
| Named segments | Not supported | :slug style, such as /blog/:year/:month/:day |
| Slug change on an existing page | A checkbox in Page settings creates the 301 for you | Does not update redirects; Framer says to do it manually |
| Published count limit | None, 1,000 recommended | Not published |
| Cost of a rule | Written into the site's manifest.json, which browsers download | Not published |
| Whole-domain redirect | Handled at the old host | Same. Framer states sub-paths only |
What this does to a migration plan
- Price the Pro plan into a Framer migration from the start. If the budget only covers Basic, the honest answer is that the migration will cost the site its existing search positions, and that is a business decision rather than a technical detail.
- On Framer, budget time for the slug changes nobody logged. Framer states plainly that changing a sub-path from the canvas or the CMS does not update the redirect table, so the table drifts every time someone renames a page.
- On Webflow, enter specific rules before wildcards and treat the order as permanent, because it is. On Framer, enter them in any order and drag them afterwards.
- Neither platform can redirect an old domain to a new one. That has to happen at the old host before anything else is switched, on both.
The wider point is the one worth carrying into any platform decision. The feature existed on both, so a comparison table with two ticks in the redirects row would have been accurate and useless. What decides the project is which plan the tick sits behind, and that is a row most comparisons do not have. The same applies to the rest of the platform, which we set out in what Framer gates behind which plan.
