Methodology Version: Summer 2024
Methodology for Ranking Website Builders
Liam Artman
We have developed our own evaluation methodology for website builders, which allows us to assess the platform based on 20 parameters. Some evaluations are subjective, while others are fully automated.
Our goal is to help you choose a website builder that is as user-friendly as possible while allowing you to create websites that drive sales, not just have an "online presence."
Evaluation Criteria for Website Builders:
Website Editor
A key feature of a website builder is its page editor. Does it allow you to create the intended website design? Can you fully control the design, or does the editor have significant limitations?
We identified four key parameters that we consider important for evaluating a website editor. Together, these parameters can score a total of 100 points.
We identified four key parameters that we consider important for evaluating a website editor. Together, these parameters can score a total of 100 points.
Number of blocks
Maximum: 30 points
Ability to create benchmark layouts
Maximum: 30 points
Ability to have full control over the design
Maximum: 20 points
Responsive Video Integration
20 points
Number of blocks
Websites built with website builders are created from blocks: by arranging the sequence of blocks on the page, you get descriptions of the company, services, events, etc.
We counted the number of blocks available on each website builder and awarded points based on this number. The formula for scoring blocks is:
(number of blocks on the evaluated website builder) / (maximum number of blocks among all website builders) * 30.
Thus, a builder can score a maximum of 30 points for the number of blocks.
We counted the number of blocks available on each website builder and awarded points based on this number. The formula for scoring blocks is:
(number of blocks on the evaluated website builder) / (maximum number of blocks among all website builders) * 30.
Thus, a builder can score a maximum of 30 points for the number of blocks.
Ability to Create Benchmark Layout
We created a standard website layout for a service company in Google Docs and tried to replicate this site on each of the website builders.
The layout meets the basic needs of companies, and the structure of the first screen is similar to that of 70% of startup sites on Producthunt (and we ❤️ Producthunt).
Layout Structure:
Header
First screen consisting of a 50/50 block: on the left, there is a headline, text, three key points about the company, and a button. On the right, there is an image.
Scrolling marquee
Services block (cards with images, service names, and brief descriptions)
Contact form
Footer
A WhatsApp link always at the bottom right of the screen
Link to the benchmark layout:
Producthunt Startup Structures We Focused On
We awarded 30 points if the website builder allows creating such a page. If the editor lacks certain features, we deducted points accordingly.
Ability to Have Full Control Over the Design
This evaluation is for designers: can you create a website design in Figma and then accurately recreate it in the website builder?
20 points if possible. Important: this evaluation was based on simple layouts. In the future, we plan to rethink this test and offer a more precise and flexible methodology that reflects this parameter.
Responsive Video Integration
We award 20 points if MP4 videos can be uploaded to the website pages. The video must work on both desktops and mobile devices.
Important features include:
Important features include:
Autoplay video.
Interactive videos (where clicking activates sound, but the video starts from the beginning, as seen in Telegram messenger).
SEO Capabilities
The evaluation of SEO capabilities was conducted based on three categories: basic features, technical optimization, and testing of the website builder using specialized services.
Maximum Score: 100
Calculation: (Technical Optimization Score + Google Pagespeed Score + GTMetrix Score + Pingdom Score) / 4
Basic Features
We checked for the presence of basic SEO features: the ability to edit page Titles and Descriptions, the ability to change the website Favicon, or upload an image that will be displayed when a link to the website is shared on social media and messengers. Naturally, the website builder should allow connecting a custom domain with an SSL certificate.
All the platforms we tested have basic SEO features. We did not award points for the presence of basic features, as they are available on all platforms and are considered standard.
Technical Optimization
The website builder must provide search engines with accurate information about the websites so that search engines can quickly learn about the appearance of new pages on the site. It is important that the created site does not have duplicate pages (i.e., pages with the same content but different addresses).
What we evaluated:
What we evaluated:
The ability to manage the 404 page. It should be a website page, not a system page of the website builder.
The website builder should automatically create a robots.txt file, which should contain a link to the sitemap with a list of all pages.
There should be a function for redirecting pages with/without trailing slashes. For example, if the «About Us» section has the address /about, then accessing /about/ should redirect to /about (i.e., the page without the trailing slash).
There should be a redirection (or a 404 error) if someone adds .php or index.php and similar addresses to the URLs.
Each parameter was evaluated out of 25 points, so the maximum score for technical optimization is 100.
The key result of the test is the Google Performance score for mobile devices, which is rated from 0 to 100 points. The test evaluates the template based on five parameters, each with its own weight:
| Audit | Weight | Description |
| First Contentful Paint | 10% | First Contentful Paint marks the time at which the first text or image is painted. |
| Speed Index | 10% | Speed Index shows how quickly the contents of a page are visibly populated. |
| Largest Contentful Paint | 25% | Largest Contentful Paint marks the time at which the largest text or image is painted. |
| Total Blocking Time | 30% | Sum of all time periods between First Contentful Paint and Time to Interactive. |
| Cumulative Layout Shift | 25% | Largest Contentful Paint marks the time at which the largest text or image is painted. |
Examples of Website Evaluation Using Google Pagespeed Insight
It is important to note that Google Pagespeed Insight is not just a technical evaluation but a metric that impacts sales. The lower the score, the more visitors leave the site due to slow page loads or other technical difficulties.
GTMetrix and Pingdom Grades
Similarly to Google Pagespeed Insight, we used GTMetrix and Pingdom services to check the templates. Each service rated the website template on a 100-point scale.
While the Google Pagespeed test focuses on mobile devices, these tests evaluate the desktop versions of websites.
Examples of Website Evaluation Using GTMetrix and Pingdom
Ease of Use
To determine how user-friendly a website builder is, we asked a regular person, not a designer, to create websites with a simple structure using the builders. During the creation process, we evaluated three parameters:
Time to Mastery:
How long it takes to understand the organization of the website builder. This includes creating new pages, changing information, and customizing the design (changing the color and shape of buttons). The fastest website builder to master receives a maximum of 30 points. Other platforms receive fewer points proportionally based on the increased time to mastery.
Time to Create a Website:
We created identical websites (to the extent possible with each builder) on each platform. This metric is measured in minutes. The maximum is 10 points, calculated similarly to Time to Mastery.
Beginner-Friendly:
This is a subjective evaluation by the tester. We award 10 points if we believe the builder is suitable for beginners with no prior experience in website creation or internet marketing.
Thus, the maximum score in the Ease of Use category is 50 points.
Customer Service
Customer service significantly distinguishes one platform from another. Some platforms allow direct questions to the support team, while others require users to interact on forums, receiving answers from other users.
We established the following criteria for evaluating customer service:
We established the following criteria for evaluating customer service:
Ability to ask questions in a chat:
The chat should be available during the trial period and across all pricing plans. This is worth 20 points.
Email or ticket system support:
We award 10 points for each available support channel.
Consultation via Zoom/Google Meets:
This is valued at 30 points.
Assistance with website design:
This is also valued at 30 points.
Thus, the maximum score in the Ease of Use category is 50 points.
Sales-Driven Integrations with Messengers
While creating websites for clients, we found that widgets for WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger help increase the number of inquiries. These widgets are provided by services like Commoninja and Elfsight, with an annual cost ranging from $24 to $120.
Scoring System:
Website builder has sales-driven messenger widgets: 10 points
Website builder has basic messenger widgets (just an icon at the bottom right): 10 points
Website builder allows inserting HTML code for third-party widgets: 10 points
Thus, the maximum score for Sales-Driven Integrations with Messengers is 30 points.
Additional Features
We awarded between 0 to 100 points for additional features. These additional features include a booking system, the ability to sell digital products, LMS, invoicing, etc.