Google's John Mueller was asked what is the best CMS, content management system, is for SEO and ranking well on Google Search. John replied that all the modern CMS platforms are fine and there are no big differences, SEO-wise, between any of them.
He then shared some interesting data from the web almanac to give some of a data perspective to it all.
This came up on Reddit deep within the comments, where John wrote, "there's no fundamental SEO difference between mainstream CMSs, even static hosting with modern frameworks is fine." He said:
What part of SEO would be different from any of these CMSs vs WP? They make HTML, it's crawlable. CMSs have evolved a lot since the early days; it's no longer 2018 where some of these used JS or Flash (though those kinds of sites were interesting in their own ways too :-)). There's also managed WP hosting. Anyway, from my POV for the average content-y site, there's no fundamental SEO difference between mainstream CMSs, even static hosting with modern frameworks is fine. There's no ranking-boost for using WP. Functionalities might differ, and custom PHP code is "fun", but a lot of sites don't need that.
He then provided some data on this:
I think a challenge with your question is also what you'd consider a "decent keyword". You can look up the CMS for sites in httparchive data though, so perhaps that might lead you there. In general, looking at the web almanac for 2024 for CMS, 51% of sites use a CMS, only 8% of the top 1000 sites use a CMS, and WP has >35% of share (Wix just 2.8%), so statistically speaking there would be 4.4 sites in the top 1k from Wix (assuming my math is right, also, it's not a very useful statistic :-)). I don't think you have to be in the top 1k of the web to have good rankings though.
So technically, just built a platform that generates crawlable HTML and solid navigation and you should be fine - assuming your content is okay.
Forum discussion at Reddit.
