Environmental impact: CMS vs. HTML — what is the difference per click?

When you think about a new website, it is usually about looks, content and budget. But every page view also costs energy: on the server, over the network and on your visitor's device. Together, those three layers largely determine how “heavy” your site is for the climate.

CMS: flexible, but more computationally intensive

A CMS such as WordPress or Joomla builds pages dynamically: software runs on the server, often with a database in the background. Plug-ins and themes add functionality — and computation. Even with caching there remains a higher base load than with static sites. That is the price of editability and extensibility, not necessarily a fault.

HTML: served up, minimal work per visit

With an static HTML site pages are ready and waiting as files. The server only has to deliver them — without PHP per request or database queries. Less CPU per click usually means a lower environmental impact, especially combined with compact assets and little JavaScript. That fits our focus on sustainability and climate-neutral hosting.

Further reading and comparison

On comparing the sustainability of a CMS vs. an HTML website you will find an overview table and an estimate of the energy consumption for 100,000 page views: for a typical WordPress or Joomla site you soon end up at a multiple of the consumption of a compact static HTML site — often around five to ten times as many kilowatt hours for the same number of clicks. That makes HTML not only fast, but also a deliberate step towards a lower environmental impact per visit.

Torn between a CMS and HTML? Get in touch; we are happy to help you see which route best fits your content, your team and your sustainability goals.