Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Short-term (< 3 months)
So here's the thing about multi-region publishing - most people are asking the wrong question entirely. They're worried about whether Framer supports it when they should be asking whether they actually need it in the first place.
After 7 years of building websites and migrating dozens of projects between platforms, I've seen this pattern over and over. Teams get caught up in feature checklists instead of understanding what actually moves the needle for their business. And when it comes to multi-region publishing specifically? Well, that's where things get interesting.
The short answer to "does Framer support multi-region publishing" is: sort of, but not in the way you probably think. The longer answer involves understanding why most businesses don't actually need dedicated multi-region publishing, and when you do need it, there are better ways to handle it.
Here's what you'll learn from my experience:
Why the multi-region publishing question reveals a deeper platform strategy problem
The real difference between Webflow and Framer for international sites
My framework for choosing between no-code platforms based on actual business needs
When to use workarounds vs when to switch platforms entirely
This isn't another "Framer vs Webflow" comparison. This is about making platform decisions based on what your business actually needs, not what sounds impressive in feature lists.
Platform Reality
What the no-code community typically recommends
If you spend any time in no-code communities or read platform comparison articles, you'll get a very specific narrative about multi-region publishing. The conventional wisdom goes something like this:
Webflow is better for complex sites because it has robust CMS capabilities and proper multi-site management
Framer is for simple prototypes that don't need advanced publishing features
Multi-region publishing is essential for any business with international audiences
You need dedicated hosting regions to optimize page speed globally
Platform features should drive your decision rather than business requirements
This advice exists because it sounds technical and sophisticated. Platform comparisons love to focus on feature checklists because they're easy to understand and compare. Multi-region publishing sounds like something serious businesses need, so it becomes a key differentiator in these discussions.
The problem? Most of this conventional wisdom is solving yesterday's problems with tomorrow's tools. In 2025, content delivery networks (CDNs) have largely solved the speed optimization issues that multi-region publishing was designed to address. Meanwhile, businesses are struggling with problems that have nothing to do with hosting regions - like getting their marketing teams to actually update content without developer bottlenecks.
The real question isn't whether your platform supports multi-region publishing. It's whether your platform enables your team to move fast and iterate quickly. And that's where the conventional wisdom completely misses the point.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
This whole multi-region publishing question came up recently when I was working with a B2B startup on their website migration. They'd been on WordPress for years, and their CTO was pushing hard for Webflow specifically because it offered "proper multi-site management" for their planned European expansion.
The team was stuck in analysis paralysis. They were comparing feature matrices, reading technical documentation, and getting deeper into platform specifications. Meanwhile, their marketing site hadn't been updated in 6 months because every small change required developer involvement.
Here's what was actually happening: they had a problem with marketing velocity, not hosting regions. Their current WordPress setup was so complex that the marketing team couldn't make basic content updates. They were spending weeks planning simple page changes because everything had to go through development sprints.
But instead of focusing on that core issue, the conversation had shifted to whether they needed multi-region publishing capabilities for their future European customers. The CTO was convinced they needed Webflow's multi-site features. The design team preferred Framer's interface. The marketing team just wanted something they could actually use.
I realized this was a perfect example of what I call "feature tunnel vision" - when teams get so focused on specific platform capabilities that they lose sight of what they're actually trying to solve. The multi-region publishing debate was a distraction from the real problem: they needed a platform that would let marketing move fast.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
So I took a different approach entirely. Instead of diving deeper into platform comparisons, I suggested we step back and define what success actually looked like for their business.
First, I helped them audit their real needs:
Content velocity: Marketing needed to update pages daily, not monthly
Design flexibility: They wanted to test different page layouts quickly
International expansion: Planned for 12+ months out, and would start with just English content
Team ownership: Marketing should own the website, not engineering
Once we mapped this out, the multi-region publishing question basically answered itself. They didn't need it now, and when they did need it later, they could solve it with subdomains and smart routing - not complex platform features.
I recommended Framer, despite it not having "proper" multi-region publishing. Here's why:
The Speed Test: I had the marketing team try both platforms for 30 minutes. With Framer, they could build and publish a new landing page. With Webflow, they were still figuring out the CMS structure. That told us everything we needed to know about which platform would actually get used.
The Workaround Strategy: For future international expansion, I designed a simple approach using Framer's subdomain functionality plus Cloudflare for global CDN coverage. This would give them 90% of the benefits of multi-region publishing without the complexity.
The Migration Timeline: We moved the entire site to Framer in 2 weeks. The marketing team was making updates within days. Compare that to typical Webflow migrations that can take 6-8 weeks when you factor in CMS setup and team training.
The key insight: they didn't need a platform with perfect multi-region publishing. They needed a platform that removed friction from their daily workflow. Everything else was optimization for problems they didn't have yet.
Velocity Over Features
Choose platforms based on daily workflow needs, not future feature requirements. Speed of iteration usually trumps technical sophistication.
International Workarounds
For most businesses, subdomain + CDN setups provide 90% of multi-region benefits without platform lock-in or complexity.
Team Ownership
The best platform is the one your marketing team will actually use. Technical features mean nothing if they create adoption barriers.
Platform Reality Check
Multi-region publishing sounds important but rarely impacts business outcomes as much as content velocity and team autonomy.
The results spoke for themselves. Within 30 days of the Framer migration:
Page update frequency increased 10x: From monthly to multiple times per week
New landing page creation: Marketing built 8 new pages for different campaigns
Developer involvement dropped to zero: No more development tickets for content changes
Global page speed remained excellent: Framer's built-in CDN handled international traffic just fine
Six months later, when they actually started their European expansion, the "multi-region publishing problem" turned out to be a non-issue. They created eu.company.com on Framer, pointed it to the same design system, and localized the content manually. Total setup time: 2 hours.
The CTO later admitted that focusing on multi-region publishing had been a classic case of premature optimization. They'd been solving for scale they didn't have while ignoring friction that was killing their daily productivity.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
Features don't matter if they create adoption barriers: A sophisticated platform that your team won't use is worse than a simple platform they'll use daily
Multi-region publishing is often premature optimization: Most businesses need content velocity more than hosting sophistication
Workarounds can be better than built-in features: Simple subdomain + CDN setups are more flexible than platform-specific multi-region tools
Platform decisions should be reversible: Choose based on immediate needs, plan for easy migration later
Team ownership trumps technical features: The platform that removes developer bottlenecks wins
Test actual usage, not feature lists: 30-minute user tests reveal more than hours of documentation reading
International expansion needs are often overstated: Start simple, scale complexity only when proven necessary
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups considering Framer vs Webflow:
Prioritize marketing team velocity over technical sophistication
Use subdomain strategy for international markets
Focus on rapid landing page creation for campaign testing
Choose platforms that reduce developer dependencies
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce stores evaluating multi-region needs:
Consider platform integration with your ecommerce backend first
Test content update workflows with your marketing team
Evaluate CDN coverage for your target markets
Plan for easy migration as international needs evolve