/01
WordPress → Sanity
Move off WordPress onto a typed content model, a Next.js frontend and an editing experience your team actually wants to use — without losing a URL or a ranking.
Migration
Leaving WordPress three destinations, honestly compared
Most WordPress sites do not need replacing. The ones that do usually share the same three problems: a content model nobody can maintain, a plugin stack nobody has audited, and a patching process that cannot keep up. Here is where to go instead — and when to stay.
Content auditURL preservationEN/AR
/01
WordPress vs the alternatives
Twelve criteria that actually decide a replatform, scored in both directions. WordPress wins several of them.
| Criterion | WordPress (today) | Sanity + Next.js | Laravel Filament | Umbraco |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content model | Posts/pages + ACF bolt-ons | Typed schemas, defined in code | Eloquent models + migrations | Document types |
| Editor experience | Familiar, plugin-dependent | Studio, real-time, customisable | Admin panel, developer-defined | Mature editor UI |
| Frontend freedom | Themes; headless possible | Any framework; Next.js default | Blade/Livewire or Inertia + React | Razor or headless Delivery API |
| Public attack surface | PHP origin + plugin surface | Static/ISR at the edge; no public DB | PHP origin, no plugin market | .NET origin, curated packages |
| Who patches, how fast | You — core, plugins and themes | Vendor-run content layer | You, via Composer; small surface | You, on the LTS cadence |
| Supply chain | ~60k plugins, uneven quality | Few, mostly first-party | Composer, curated | NuGet, curated |
| EN/AR and RTL | WPML or Polylang add-on | Field-level i18n built in | Laravel localisation, custom build | Native language variants |
| Custom business logic | Hooks; fights the grain | App layer beside the CMS | A full Laravel application | A full .NET application |
| Hosting and ops | Cheap shared through to managed | Vercel + hosted content lake | App server + database + queue | .NET host + database |
| Licence and cost shape | GPL core; plugin licences | Open Studio; usage-based SaaS | MIT, free | Open core; Cloud optional |
| Team skills | PHP/WordPress, widely available | TypeScript/React | PHP/Laravel | C#/.NET |
| Migration effort from WP | — | ~4–10 weeks | ~6–14 weeks | ~8–16 weeks |
Versions current at publication: WordPress 7.1.2, Sanity v6, Filament 5.x, Umbraco 17 LTS on .NET 10. Effort ranges are indicative for a 50–200 page marketing site and move with template count, integrations and content cleanliness.
/02
Which path fits you
The short version, if you only read one section.
Package
Best for
Not for
Sanity + Next.js
Best for
Content-led marketing sites, multilingual EN/AR, and teams who want editorial independence and speed.
Not for
Sites whose core is complex transactional business logic.
Laravel Filament
Best for
Sites that are really applications — portals, bookings, dashboards, custom approval workflow.
Not for
Pure brochure sites, where an application framework is overkill and the editor experience suffers.
Umbraco
Best for
.NET estates, enterprise and public-sector governance, Microsoft-aligned IT and procurement.
Not for
Teams with no .NET capability and no plan to acquire it.
Still unsure? The deciding question is almost always whether your site is mostly content or mostly behaviour.
/03
Migration services
One per destination.
/02
WordPress → Filament
For sites that are really applications. Move off WordPress and its plugin stack onto Laravel, with Filament as the admin layer and your business rules written as code instead of hooks.
/03
WordPress → Umbraco
For organisations standardised on .NET. Move off WordPress onto Umbraco — an editor-friendly CMS your IT function already knows how to host, govern and audit.
/04