Astro is fantastic. I say this as a developer. The "Islands" architecture and zero-JS by default are a dream. But developer dreams are often client nightmares.
1. The "Missing Piece": The Backend
Astro is a frontend framework. It doesn't have a database, it doesn't have an admin area, it doesn't have user management. WordPress is a complete system.
To give a client a manageable Astro site, you have to pair it with a Headless CMS (like Sanity, Strapi, or WordPress Headless itself). This means:
- Two systems to maintain instead of one.
- Complex API management.
- Build and deploy (CI/CD) configurations that can break.
2. The Illusion of Extra Speed
Yes, a static Astro site will be slightly faster than a well-optimized WordPress site (maybe 99/100 versus 95/100 on PageSpeed). But ask yourself: Is that 4% extra performance worth 100% extra complexity in editorial management?
For a dev's personal blog? Absolutely yes. For a company site that needs to publish news daily? Probably no.
3. Autonomy and Costs
As with other modern frameworks, "Custom" sites in Astro have higher development costs and require specialized developers for maintenance. WordPress democratizes site management. The client can add pages, change menus, and install tracking pixels without calling the agency.
If you lock the client into a system they don't understand (Markdown files or complex headless CMS), you are creating a toxic dependency, not a partnership.
Verdict
If the project is a static landing page that will change once a year, Astro is perfect (and free hosting!). But if the client wants a living site, with a robust backend, easy SEO, and total autonomy, WordPress remains the logical, economical, and strategic choice.