Static vs Dynamic Websites: Choosing the Right Tool for the Job

Static and dynamic websites are built differently, and the difference affects what a site costs to run, how fast it is, how secure it is and how easy it is to update.

Think of a static website as a printed document. A direct mapping exists between the code you write to build the site and the result delivered to a visitor's browser. No extra processing or server-side logic is applied; the server returns the requested HTML document to the browser.

No matter how many times you visit the website (or print the document in our analogy), you get the same result.

A dynamic website is more like television. There are different channels with different shows at different times in different parts of the world, so every time you turn the TV on, something else is playing.

In real-world terms, a simple blog or a restaurant menu could be a static website, whereas something like Facebook would be a dynamic one.

Static websites: the good

Less overhead

There are fewer moving parts on a static website. There is no need for a database or a CMS, and everything can be achieved with vanilla HTML, CSS and JS.

More speed with less effort

This isn't to say that dynamic websites aren't fast or that static sites can't be slow, but a static site takes much less work to make fast. Because it's simple, pages are much easier to cache, and there's less time spent "building" your page on the server at request time because everything is served as is.

More secure

Because no code is executed on the server and no database is involved, a static site is technically more secure, especially if you go a long time between changes and updates.

Cheaper hosting

Simplicity comes to the rescue again. It's cheaper and easier to host a static site made of a few HTML files than a dynamic site where you need to manage versions of PHP, install a CMS, set up a database and so on.

Static websites: the bad

A steep learning curve for non-developers

If you're building a static site for yourself, you'll need to overcome the steep learning curve of writing HTML, CSS and JS. If your eyes just glazed over reading that, a static site is probably not what you want. But if you're up for a challenge and want to expand your skills, you should definitely give it a go.

If you're a developer building a static site for a client, make sure you and your client are on the same page about what support for the new website looks like. There's nothing worse than needing to update your site only to find out the person who built it is long gone or has moved on.

Extra work for dynamic functionality

When there is no server-side processing, you can quickly find the edges of a static website. Think of simple things like a contact form, which needs a server to process the submitted data and send an email.

There are simple ways around these problems, like EmailJS or Netlify Forms, but they bring extra steps, potential costs or even technical debt that you might need to account for.

Working with many assets can be tricky

Your website will likely have images, videos, file downloads and more that you are now responsible for managing. It's not very practical to store a ton of pictures and files with the website code, because there are limits to what you can put in source control.

Processing these assets every time you build your site can be slow and tedious. Many people reach for services like Imgix or Cloudinary to take some of the hard work out of managing images of various sizes on different devices, but these come at a cost.

Another option is to host your own image processing server like Thumbor, but then you're paying with your time to deploy, maintain and administer it.

Dynamic websites: the good

Everything in one place

When you build a dynamic website, you're usually working with a CMS (Content Management System) that comes out of the box with all the tools you need to get your website up and running. It's typically accessed from an admin portal where you can manage everything to do with your site in a straightforward interface. No code to be seen!

A great editing experience

The freedom to add, remove and change content on your site in real time, without waiting for it to deploy and rebuild, is a big win. Paired with great rich text editing, you can focus on writing content for your site and not code.

Plugins to the rescue

No matter which CMS you end up using, there's typically a large library of plugins that can fill any gaps the CMS has: user logins, sending emails, setting up a store, accepting payments and more.

There is usually a plugin that can do what you want, and a community around it to support you. You can also build your own plugins to fit your unique requirements.

Dynamic websites: the bad

More moving parts

A dynamic site built on a CMS has a few extra moving parts to be aware of. The CMS itself might need a licence, there is a database that needs to be backed up, and there is the server, which you might need to maintain depending on your hosting.

Updates

Unlike the static approach, you must keep up with updates to your CMS and server operating system (depending on hosting). These range from basic bug fixes to critical vulnerabilities that could leave your website open to hackers.

Tedious local development

Because of the database and server requirements to run your CMS, trying out new things on your own computer before you make them live can be tricky. There's a bit of a learning curve to set up your environment and get things running, and it's more complicated than just previewing a static site.

No source control

Your content and configuration are typically stored in the database and not in your code, so there is little to no ability to track changes in source control. This depends heavily on your CMS, though. Something like Craft does an amazing job of keeping your templates, plugins and configuration in code, which makes source control easy.

Which one should you choose?

The answer, like most things, is "it depends". Here are some general rules:

• If you're a developer building something simple for yourself, go static.
• If you're building something for a client to maintain, go dynamic.
• If your site doesn't need complex processing by a server, go static.
• If you want a full-featured editing experience, or have multiple people working on the site at the same time, go dynamic.
• If you want potentially cheaper hosting and less ongoing maintenance, go static.
• If you want something that works out of the box and has ready-made plugins to add functionality, go dynamic.

Need help choosing?

If you need help with your website, software or IT services, get in touch.