How long a Webflow migration takes: 4 weeks or 8
TL;DR
A one-to-one migration takes about 4 weeks. A redesign that also changes platforms takes about 8. The difference isn't the tool: it's how many decisions are still open when the project starts. The platform switch is the predictable part. If your site already has earned authority, an SEO migration layer starts before kickoff and continues after launch. What stretches a schedule is slow feedback, material that never arrives, and the change requested in week six.
Four weeks if it's a migration. Eight if it's also a redesign. The platform barely moves that number.
The question always arrives with a date inside it. Someone asked for the new site before the October event, and you don't really care how long it takes: you care whether it lands.
Here's what happens inside each timeline, and why the date is almost never set by the vendor.
So how long does it take?
Four weeks for a migration. Eight for a redesign. Those are our timelines, and before defending them it's worth separating the two words, because most inquiries use them as synonyms.
Migration means moving the same site from one platform to another. One to one. WordPress to Webflow, or Webflow to Astro with Sanity. The design isn't up for discussion: it moves across.
Redesign is something else. It includes strategy, a workshop, business definitions, messaging, copy, design, and only then development. The platform switch tags along for the ride.
For context, the ranges published for 2026 run from 4 to 6 weeks for a small site up to 12 to 20 for an enterprise project. Ours land at the low end for an unglamorous reason: we're a small team and there's no internal chain of command to get through.
So the first question isn't how many weeks. It's which of the two projects you're buying.
Why does a migration fit in four weeks?
Because there are no decisions left to make. The design exists, the content exists, the structure exists. The work is execution.
That doesn't make it light, far from it: inside those four weeks there's a full URL inventory, a one-to-one mapping of old to new, the 301s implemented, and a crawl afterwards to confirm nothing was left dangling.
There's also a layer nobody sees that keeps the whole thing from going wrong: CMS architecture, internal linking structure, structured data, and QA on forms and integrations. We covered that at length in the note on migrating without losing your SEO.
A fast migration isn't a half-done migration. It's a migration where nobody is making decisions on the fly.
What if your site already has earned authority?
Then there's another layer, and it doesn't fit inside the four weeks: it wraps around them.
A site that has been publishing for years accumulates something that doesn't move with the content: rankings, links pointing at specific URLs, pages Google already knows which query to show. That's an asset. And it's the only one in the project that can vanish overnight without anyone noticing until next month's report lands.
So when the site has organic traffic that matters, the migration stops being a moving job and becomes five fronts running in parallel.
- Measurement before, during and after: keyword research, ranking identification, and a pre and post migration report. Without that baseline there's no way to know whether you lost anything, because there's nothing to compare against.
- Competitor analysis: who competes for your same queries and what ranks them. Launching without that context is launching blind.
- Architecture and indexing: page structure, internal links, URLs, sitemap and robots. Skip this and key pages can take weeks to index.
Then comes semantic optimization, which means making sure every page still signals to Google which query it's relevant for: titles, descriptions, heading hierarchy, HTML semantics. All of it gets touched during a migration, and it's where things break most quietly.
And there's redirect mapping, the critical step: full URL audit, one-to-one mapping, 301s implemented, and a post-migration crawl. Get that wrong and your entire ranking history disappears overnight.
Here's the schedule detail: the baseline measurement starts before kickoff and monitoring continues for weeks after launch. Which means the project ends when traffic stabilizes, not the day you hit publish. If your site has no authority to lose, you don't need this layer and you shouldn't pay for it.
Where do the eight weeks of a redesign go?
Into almost everything that happens before anyone opens Figma.
A redesign starts with strategy and moves into the workshop, which is where the business definitions nobody had written down finally surface: who you sell to, with what argument, why they pick you and not the other guy. Messaging comes out of that, and copy comes out of the messaging. Only then does design start.
That's why design takes the largest share of the timeline. It's the most hands-on part of the process and it's where the value you'll look at every day gets added. You can't speed it up without lowering the quality, and lowering quality there is the exact opposite of what you came for.
Development in Webflow, by comparison, is the predictable part. It estimates well and it holds.
And here's what surprises people when you say it out loud: in a redesign, the platform switch is incidental. Nobody hires eight weeks to move off WordPress. They hire it for the new site, and the move comes along with it.
This also explains the number on the quote. Adding the redesign raises the cost between 40% and 80%, per the ranges we broke down here. It isn't a surcharge: it's another project inside the project.
What actually stretches a schedule?
You do. And I say it without blame, because on the technical side the clock is fairly boring: it gets estimated and it holds.
In a one-to-one migration this barely happens, because there's nothing to approve. In a redesign it happens over and over, and almost always in the same three places:
- Feedback that drags: the review round scheduled for next week that ends up happening three weeks later.
- Stakeholders out of sync: three people disagree and the project waits while they sort it out among themselves.
- Material that never arrives: photos, copy, access, the vector logo that lived on the computer of someone who doesn't work there anymore.
Then there's the fourth, the most expensive of all: the late-stage change request. A change asked for in week six doesn't cost what that change costs. It costs everything it forces you to redo of what was already approved, plus the conversation explaining why the date moved. This isn't hypothetical.
None of the four is the tool's fault. Which is why switching agencies rarely fixes a schedule.
What can you do to make the date?
Three things, and all three happen before you sign.
Decide who approves. One person, not a committee. They can consult whoever they want, but whoever says "go" has to be a single person.
Gather the material before kickoff. Every hour your team spends sorting out copy, photos and access before the project starts is an hour it doesn't cost the schedule later, and nobody bills you for it.
And agree on the last week changes are accepted without moving the date. This is the one nobody writes down and the one that saves the most dates. If that conversation feels awkward today, picture it in week six.
And after launch?
The project doesn't end the day it ships. It ends when your team can run it alone.
That's why training is always included, no exceptions: if you end up depending on us to change a headline, we did the job badly. We add a 30-day warranty minimum on every project, and ongoing support only where a client genuinely needs it, not as a retainer charged for the sake of it.
Count those weeks too when you build your internal calendar.
What people ask once a date has been promised
These come up the moment someone puts the timeline on a shared calendar. If yours is missing, send it over and we'll add it.
The date isn't set by the platform
Before you ask for quotes, decide which of the two projects you need. Migrating and redesigning are different things, they cost differently and they take different amounts of time, and mixing them into one request is the fastest way to get three quotes you can't compare.
I know how it goes: you didn't pick the date, you were handed it. So the question changes. It isn't how long it takes, it's which version fits. A one-to-one migration fits in four weeks and leaves you the redesign for later, calmly, without switching platforms all over again.
If you want us to look at your site and tell you which of the two you need, write to us. We'll give you the real timeline, even if the answer is that you don't need to migrate anything.
FAQs
Can it be done in less than four weeks?
Sometimes, when the site is small, has no CMS and the integrations are two forms. The timeline drops there because the work drops, not because someone runs faster.
What you shouldn't compress is the redirect mapping or the QA. Those are the two things that, when they go wrong, show up six weeks after launch, once you've already lost rankings and the problem costs three times as much to fix.
Does the site go down during the migration?
No. The new site gets built in parallel on a staging domain while the current one keeps running normally. The actual cutover takes minutes and happens by pointing the domain at the new site.
What is worth planning is the timing. Publishing on a Tuesday morning isn't the same as publishing on a Friday at seven in the evening, when nobody will be watching Search Console for two days.
Should I migrate first and redesign later?
It depends on the date you're up against. With a fixed, tight deadline, migrating first is the move: you get off the old platform and redesign later without the pressure of the move.
If there's no rush, doing both together works out better. You avoid paying twice for coordination, QA and going live, even though the project looks more expensive on paper.
How much time does my team have to put in?
Less than you think, but concentrated and at specific moments: the workshop, the review rounds and handing over material. Outside those milestones, your team carries on with its own work.
The problem is never the number of hours, it's availability. A two-hour review that takes two weeks to schedule costs two weeks of project, not two hours.
How long does traffic take to recover after a migration?
If the redirects and the architecture are done right, there's usually nothing to recover because there's no drop. There can be ranking fluctuation for a few weeks while Google recrawls the new site, and that's normal.
What isn't normal is a sustained drop the following month. That's why the baseline measurement matters so much: without the picture of where you stood before, there's no way to tell an expected fluctuation from a real problem that needs fixing now.
What happens to the hundreds of old blog posts?
That gets decided before the project starts, not during. You look at which ones bring traffic or rank, and those get migrated with their redirects, no argument. The rest gets archived or redirected to the matching category.
The decision you postpone always ends in "let's migrate everything," and everything gets paid for in hours and in weeks. Settle it in week one, while the conversation is still cheap.
Sources
- Ander.Agency project timelines: our own delivery data, 2026.
- Creative Corner Studio: 2026 migration timeline ranges, cited in our migration cost breakdown.









