01CMS: flexible, but more computationally intensive
A CMS such as WordPress or Joomla builds pages dynamically: only when someone requests a page does the server assemble it. To do so, software runs on the server, often with a database in the background. Plug-ins and themes add features, and with them, extra computation.
Even with caching (temporarily stored copies of pages), there remains a higher base load than with static sites. That is the price of editability and extensibility, and not necessarily a flaw.
02HTML: served up, minimal work per visit
With static HTML, the pages are already prepared as files. The server only has to deliver them, without PHP work per visit or database queries. Less computation per click usually means a lower environmental impact, especially in combination with compact files and little JavaScript. You can read more about this way of building at HTML web design.
Website with a CMS
- Server rebuilds every page
- Database runs alongside
- Plug-ins and themes require computation
Static HTML site
- Page is already prepared as a file
- No database needed
- Compact, with little JavaScript
That fits with our focus on sustainability and climate-neutral hosting.
03Further reading and comparison
On our page 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.
- 100.000page views as a worked example
- 5 to 10×as many kilowatt hours for a typical CMS site as for compact HTML
For a typical WordPress or Joomla site, you quickly end up with a multiple of the consumption of a compact static HTML site: often around five to ten times as many kilowatt hours. That makes HTML not only fast, but also a conscious step towards a lower environmental impact per visit.
Torn between a CMS and HTML? Get in touch. We are happy to look at which route best suits your content, your team and your sustainability goals.