The takeaway
Compare the scope before comparing the price. Design complexity, content management, integrations, translated content, acceptance checks and maintenance all affect the work required. Ask each provider to identify included deliverables, recurring costs and exclusions; a page count alone is not enough.
Compare the implementation and handover
A maintained template can suit a standard site. Custom components can make sense when your content or interactions do not fit it well. Review the implementation, dependency maintenance and accessibility rather than inferring quality from price or framework alone.
Specify who edits content, which integrations are required, and which source files, licenses and documentation are delivered. Include hosting and ongoing maintenance in the comparison.
Agree measurable performance requirements
Agree representative pages, devices, network conditions and measurement tools before setting a performance target. Responsive images, reserved dimensions, sensible font loading and controlled third-party scripts help avoid unnecessary work.
Core Web Vitals measure loading, responsiveness and visual stability. Lab checks help diagnose problems; real-user measurements describe visitor experience. A lab score does not guarantee search rankings or sales.
Budget for content and languages
A CMS can support non-technical editors; a static repository may be enough when developers handle changes. Choose around the actual publishing workflow.
For English and French, budget for translation and review alongside separate localized URLs, reciprocal language alternates and a consistent canonical host. Translated pages do not automatically incur a duplicate-content penalty.