Do I need a paid Webflow plan?

No. A free Webflow workspace is enough. You just need an API token with read access, which any workspace can generate from Site settings → Apps & Integrations.

Is my API token safe?

Yes. Tokens are used once per request to call Webflow's read-only API and are never stored, logged, or shared. We recommend generating a read-only token scoped to the site you want to export — you can revoke it from Webflow the moment your download finishes.

What happens to CMS-referenced images and assets?

Every image referenced by a CMS field is downloaded and bundled into the export. Asset URLs are rewritten to relative paths, so your export has zero remaining dependency on Webflow's CDN.

What format does the CMS export in?

Each collection comes out as JSON, Markdown, and MDX side-by-side. Use whichever fits your stack — Next.js, Astro, Hugo, Contentlayer, or your own pipeline.

What's the difference between scanning and exporting?

Scanning is free and shows every page, collection, and asset that will be in the export — so you can verify the scope before paying. You only pay when you click Download.

Can I re-download my export later?

Yes. Paid sites stay unlocked for 30 days. Re-scans and re-downloads in that window are free, so you can pull a fresh export whenever you publish changes in Webflow.

Will this work on Webflow Enterprise or sites with custom domains?

Yes. If a Webflow API token can read it, this tool can export it. Custom domains and Enterprise sites are supported.

Where to Host an Exported Webflow Site

Once you have an exported Webflow site, hosting becomes the easy part. The folder is just HTML, CSS, JS, images, and fonts — anything that serves static files can serve it.

The interesting question isn't "what works" (almost everything works). It's "what's actually best for the kind of project I have." I run Webflow Export and watch users deploy these all day, so here's the version of this list I'd give a friend, with the actual tradeoffs.

The five hosts worth considering

I'll skip the "you could also use…" list of 20 alternatives. In practice, almost everyone ends up on one of these:

Host	Best at	Skip if
Netlify	The easiest first deploy	You're already deep in the Vercel ecosystem
Vercel	Sites that may grow into Next.js apps	You only need static and want zero config drift
Cloudflare Pages	Global performance + high bandwidth	You need rich CI integrations beyond Git
GitHub Pages	Personal projects, docs, archived sites	The site is commercial or needs custom headers
S3 + CloudFront	Maximum control, enterprise requirements	You don't have a DevOps habit

The rest of this is the detail under each row.

1. Netlify — the default choice for one-off deploys

Netlify is where most exported Webflow sites end up, and that's not a coincidence. The flow is faster than anywhere else:

Unzip your export
Open app.netlify.com/drop
Drag the folder onto the page
Get a live URL in ~10 seconds

That's it. No CLI, no Git, no account configuration. For agency client handoffs and one-time deploys, this is hard to beat.

Deploying an exported Webflow site to Netlify via drag-and-drop

For repeatable deploys, push the folder to a Git repo and connect it — every commit redeploys. Their docs on creating deploys cover every method.

Free tier (check current limits at netlify.com/pricing): generous enough for any normal marketing site — hundreds of GB of bandwidth per month, included SSL, preview URLs on every commit.

Where Netlify wins:

Forms (Netlify Forms accepts submissions without a backend — directly useful for exported Webflow sites that lose their form handler)
_redirects file makes 301 rules trivial
Branch previews
Friendly UI for non-engineers

Where Netlify shows its age:

Build minutes can run out fast on large monorepos
Edge functions are less mature than Cloudflare's
The platform feels less integrated than Vercel for React apps

If I had to pick one host for "I just want this exported site online by lunchtime," it's Netlify.

2. Vercel — the choice for sites that will keep evolving

Vercel is technically excellent for static sites, but its real strength is what happens next. If there's any chance the site grows into a Next.js application — adding a /dashboard route, a contact form with a serverless handler, A/B tests, or personalization — Vercel makes that path painless.

For a pure static export, the deploy looks like:

npm i -g vercel
cd path/to/exported-site
vercel --prod

That's it. First run links the directory; subsequent runs deploy. See Vercel's deployment docs for the full picture.

Deploying an exported Webflow site to Vercel via the CLI

Where Vercel wins:

Next.js native (matters if you'll ever integrate the export with a frontend framework)
Best-in-class preview deployments for engineering teams
Edge Functions, Edge Middleware
Image optimization built in

Where Vercel is awkward:

Hobby tier is non-commercial only — if the site makes money, you need a Pro plan
More "engineering tool" than "marketing tool" — non-technical clients sometimes find the UI dense
Bandwidth on Hobby is tighter than Cloudflare's

The way I think about it: pick Netlify if the site will probably stay static forever. Pick Vercel if there's a real chance it grows into something more.

3. Cloudflare Pages — the choice for performance & scale

Cloudflare Pages sits on top of Cloudflare's global network, which means your site serves from ~300 cities worldwide with edge caching that just works. For sites with global traffic, the latency improvement over single-region origins is real.

Deploy via Git integration through the dashboard, or via the CLI:

npx wrangler pages deploy ./path/to/exported-site

Deploying an exported Webflow site to Cloudflare Pages

Where Cloudflare Pages wins:

Unlimited bandwidth on the free tier (no other major host offers this)
Unlimited requests
Global edge caching with no setup
Strong DDoS protection inherited from Cloudflare
Workers integration if you eventually need edge compute

Where Cloudflare Pages is awkward:

Build minutes are tighter than Netlify (500/month on free vs Netlify's 300, but the experience differs)
Less polished Git integration than Netlify or Vercel
Forms, identity, and similar "platform features" don't exist — bring your own

For high-traffic marketing sites or anything serving a global audience, Cloudflare Pages is often the right answer. The bandwidth math alone wins it for content-heavy sites.

4. GitHub Pages — the right call more often than people admit

GitHub Pages has a reputation for being basic, and it is. But basic is often correct. For documentation, personal portfolios, archived client work, and project microsites, it's free, durable, and integrated with where the code already lives.

git init
git add .
git commit -m "initial"
gh repo create my-site --public --source=. --push
# Enable Pages in repo settings → Pages → Deploy from branch

Where GitHub Pages wins:

Truly free, no quotas to track
Code and deploy live in one place
Custom domain + HTTPS work out of the box
Has outlived several "cooler" alternatives

Where GitHub Pages shows its limits:

No build platform — you push static files or use Jekyll
No custom HTTP headers, no _redirects, no edge logic
No preview deploys for branches
Commercial sites are technically against the terms

For a freelance portfolio or an archived client site, this is genuinely the right answer.

5. S3 + CloudFront — for teams that have opinions about infrastructure

If your organization already runs on AWS, dropping the export into an S3 bucket behind CloudFront is straightforward and gives you maximum control. Pay-as-you-go pricing for a low-traffic site comes out to a few dollars a month.

The setup is more involved — bucket configuration, CloudFront distribution, OAI/OAC for security, certificate via ACM, Route 53 records — but the result is rock-solid and integrates cleanly with the rest of an AWS stack.

I'd only recommend this if:

You already have AWS expertise on the team
You need to integrate with other AWS services (Lambda, CloudFront Functions, custom WAF rules)
You have compliance requirements that prefer "infrastructure you control"

Otherwise, the convenience of Netlify or Cloudflare wins by a wide margin.

The decision in 30 seconds

Most teams overthink this. Run through these questions in order:

Just trying to get this online today? → Netlify Drop.
Will this site eventually become a Next.js app? → Vercel.
Global audience, lots of bandwidth? → Cloudflare Pages.
Personal project or archive? → GitHub Pages.
Already on AWS with a DevOps habit? → S3 + CloudFront.

You can always migrate later — moving an exported static site between hosts is a 5-minute operation. The "wrong" choice here is genuinely fine.

The migration mistake that hurts SEO

Worth repeating from my comparison of Webflow export vs hosting: the export itself rarely damages SEO. Broken migration plumbing does.

Specifically, when moving an exported Webflow site to any of these hosts:

Pick a trailing-slash convention (/about vs /about/) and set redirects from the other form
Regenerate sitemap.xml against the new domain
Replace any remaining uploads-ssl.webflow.com URLs in og:image and similar tags
Add 301s for any URLs that moved during the migration
Test every form — Webflow's native handler doesn't follow the export

Each host has its own conventions for these (_redirects for Netlify, vercel.json for Vercel, _redirects again for Cloudflare Pages). Get them in place before you flip DNS.

If your site uses CMS collections, also worth reading: what actually survives a Webflow CMS export — because some of the "this broke after I migrated" stories trace back to the CMS layer, not the host.