How I Saved a Framer Client $360 a Year With Next.js and Sanity

A recurring platform bill can be easy to ignore when a site is small. It becomes harder to justify when the project needs more content structure than the lower plan allows, but does not use most of the features bundled into the upgrade.

That was the decision in this project. The client needed more than two CMS collections. On Framer’s current annual pricing, that moves the site from Basic at $10 per month to Pro at $30 per month. The upgrade adds $240 a year over Basic and brings the total platform subscription to $360 a year.

The alternative was not “free hosting” in the abstract. It was a custom Next.js site deployed within Netlify’s free allowance, with Sanity’s free plan as the content system. Under those usage limits, the recurring platform cost for this specific setup was $0.

The cost comparison

Here is the recurring-cost baseline I used for the decision:

Framer Pro, billed yearly: $30 per month, or $360 per year.

Netlify Free: $0, with 300 credits per month.

Sanity Free: $0, with defined document, dataset, seat, and usage limits.

That produces a potential $360 annual saving as long as the site remains within both free plans. If it outgrows them, the calculation changes. Netlify Personal is currently $9 per month, and Sanity Growth starts at $15 per seat per month.

Why Next.js and Sanity fit this project

Next.js gave us control over the front end, routing, performance work, and integrations. Sanity kept structured content editable without tying the content model to a page builder. Netlify provided a deployment path with a free tier that matched the site’s expected traffic and build activity.

The combination was useful because each part had a clear job: Next.js rendered the website, Sanity stored and organized content, and Netlify handled deployment.

The client could keep editing content without needing the developer’s assistance.

The tradeoffs I explained before recommending the move

A cheaper recurring stack is not automatically a better stack. I would keep a site in Framer when the client values direct visual editing, wants to make layout changes without a developer, or can justify Pro through speed and autonomy.

I would consider a custom stack when the site needs a richer content model, custom logic, deeper integrations, or a long-lived platform that a developer will maintain. The client also needs a plan for dependency updates, monitoring, backups, and future changes.

The migration also creates an upfront build cost. A $360 annual saving may take time to recover, so the decision should be based on the total value of the new architecture, not a single year of subscription fees.

I would especially recommend this if you’re going to create your site for the very first time.

A practical decision checklist

Before moving a Framer site to Next.js and Sanity, answer these questions:

1. How many CMS collections and editors do you actually need?
2. Will the site remain within Netlify and Sanity’s free usage limits?
3. Who will maintain the code, dependencies, deployment settings, and content schema?
4. Does the client need visual page editing, or mainly structured content editing?
5. Are custom integrations, application features, or performance requirements important enough to justify a rebuild?
6. What is the payback period after design, development, migration, and maintenance costs?

The outcome

For this client, the custom stack removed the $360 annual Framer Pro subscription while giving the project the content structure it needed. The saving is real under the current free-plan allowances, but it is not universal. Usage, team size, maintenance, and future feature needs can all change the total cost.

The broader lesson is simple: do not upgrade or rebuild on price alone. Map the content model, expected usage, editing workflow, and maintenance responsibility first. Then compare the full cost of each workable option.

If a custom front end and structured CMS look like the better fit for your project, tell Nexio Studio what you’re building. We build Next.js websites and integrations around real project requirements.