CMS Security Comparison 2025 | WordPress vs Static

Choosing a CMS Is a Security Decision

When most businesses choose a content management system, they think about design flexibility, ease of use, and cost. Security is almost never part of the conversation. It should be. The CMS you run determines your attack surface, your ongoing maintenance burden, and how likely you are to be compromised over the next five years.

This comparison is written from a security perspective. I am not going to tell you which CMS has the prettiest templates or the easiest drag-and-drop editor. I am going to tell you which ones get hacked the most, which ones require the most maintenance to keep safe, and which ones give you the smallest attack surface by design.

We have previously written about WordPress vs. JAMstack architectures and modern web architecture patterns. This article expands on that work with a broader comparison and concrete data from 2024-2025.

The Contenders

We are comparing seven categories of web platform:

WordPress - self-hosted, open source, 43% market share
Joomla - self-hosted, open source, declining market share
Drupal - self-hosted, open source, enterprise-focused
Shopify - hosted, proprietary, e-commerce focused
Wix / Squarespace - hosted, proprietary, website builders
Headless CMS - Strapi, Contentful, Sanity, Directus
Static site generators - Astro, Next.js, Hugo, Eleventy

Each has a fundamentally different security model. Understanding these differences is the point of this article.

WordPress: The Biggest Target on the Internet

Market Share and What It Means for Security

WordPress powers approximately 43% of all websites. This market dominance makes it the single most attractive target for automated attacks. When an attacker develops an exploit for a WordPress vulnerability, the potential victim pool numbers in the hundreds of millions. No other CMS comes close in terms of attacker ROI.

The WordPress core itself is actually reasonably well-maintained. The core security team responds to disclosures promptly, and minor security releases are deployed automatically by default. The real problem is the ecosystem: themes and plugins.

The Plugin Problem

The WordPress plugin directory contains over 60,000 plugins. Many are maintained by a single developer. Many are abandoned. In 2024, WPScan tracked over 5,000 new vulnerability disclosures in WordPress plugins and themes. Some affected millions of installations.

The typical WordPress business site has 15 to 30 plugins installed. Each one is a dependency that needs to be kept up to date, and each one is a potential entry point if the developer abandons it or makes a security mistake. This is the fundamental WordPress security challenge: not the core, but the massive, uncontrolled dependency chain.

WordPress Security Summary

Attack surface: Very large. PHP runtime, MySQL database, web server, core, theme, and dozens of plugins.
Update frequency needed: Weekly minimum for plugins, immediate for critical CVEs.
Maintenance burden: High. Requires active, ongoing attention.
Self-hosting responsibility: Full. Server, PHP, database, application, and all dependencies.
Who should use it: Organizations willing to invest in ongoing security maintenance, or those with specific needs that only WordPress can meet.

Joomla: The Declining Middle Ground

Shrinking Community, Fewer Eyes on Security

Joomla once held a significant share of the CMS market. That share has been declining steadily. Fewer users means fewer developers, fewer security researchers examining the code, and slower response to vulnerabilities. The extension ecosystem is smaller than WordPress's, which means fewer choices but also a smaller attack surface from third-party code.

Historical Vulnerability Pattern

Joomla has had its share of serious vulnerabilities. The Joomla core has historically been less secure than WordPress core, with several high-severity remote code execution vulnerabilities disclosed over the years. The framework is older, and some of the architectural decisions made early on created patterns that are difficult to secure retroactively.

Joomla 4 (released 2021) and Joomla 5 (released 2023) represent significant rewrites that address many older security concerns. But many existing Joomla sites still run Joomla 3 or even Joomla 2.5, long past end of life.

Joomla Security Summary

Attack surface: Large. Similar to WordPress in architecture (PHP, MySQL, server-side rendering).
Update frequency needed: Monthly minimum, immediate for critical CVEs.
Maintenance burden: High, and finding qualified Joomla developers is increasingly difficult.
Community trend: Declining. This affects long-term viability and security response quality.
Who should use it: Existing Joomla users who want to upgrade to Joomla 5. Not recommended for new projects.

Drupal: More Secure, But More Complex

Security by Architecture

Drupal takes a different approach to security than WordPress or Joomla. The Drupal Security Team is well-organized and follows a structured disclosure process. Security advisories are rated, well-documented, and released on a regular schedule (typically Wednesdays). Modules in the official repository go through a review process.

Drupal's architecture includes built-in protections that WordPress leaves to plugins: input sanitization APIs, output escaping by default in Twig templates, CSRF token protection, and granular permission systems. These architectural decisions mean that basic security mistakes are harder to make in Drupal than in WordPress.

The Complexity Trade-off

The downside is complexity. Drupal requires more technical expertise to set up, configure, and maintain. This means higher development costs and a smaller pool of qualified developers. For an SME without in-house technical staff, Drupal can be overkill, and overkill often leads to misconfiguration.

Drupal's module ecosystem is smaller and generally better curated than WordPress's plugin ecosystem, but it is still self-hosted software with all the responsibilities that entails: server maintenance, PHP updates, database management, and application-level patching.

Drupal Security Summary

Attack surface: Medium-large. Smaller than WordPress due to better core security, but still a full server-side stack.
Update frequency needed: Monthly, immediate for critical security advisories.
Maintenance burden: Medium-high. Better security defaults, but requires skilled administrators.
Developer availability: Limited compared to WordPress. Higher cost per hour.
Who should use it: Organizations with complex content needs, compliance requirements, and budget for professional Drupal development.

Shopify: Hosted Security, Limited Control

The Managed Security Model

Shopify is a fully hosted platform. You do not manage the server, the database, the runtime, or the core application. Shopify handles all of that, including security patching, PCI DSS compliance, SSL certificates, and infrastructure security. For e-commerce, this is a significant advantage.

Shopify's security record is strong. Because it is a closed platform with a controlled app ecosystem, the attack surface available to external attackers is much smaller than a self-hosted CMS. You cannot install arbitrary PHP code. You cannot access the database directly. Many entire classes of vulnerability simply do not apply.

The Limitations

The trade-off is control. You cannot implement custom security configurations. You cannot choose your hosting provider. You cannot audit the underlying code. You are entirely dependent on Shopify's security team. If Shopify has a vulnerability, every Shopify store is affected simultaneously, and you cannot patch it yourself.

Third-party Shopify apps introduce their own risks. While the Shopify App Store has a review process, apps can still have vulnerabilities, and some process customer data through external servers that you do not control.

Shopify Security Summary

Attack surface: Small (from your perspective). Shopify manages the infrastructure.
Update frequency needed: Not applicable. Shopify handles updates.
Maintenance burden: Low for core security. You manage app choices and admin access.
Control: Limited. You cannot customize security configurations.
Who should use it: E-commerce businesses that want to minimize security maintenance overhead.

Wix / Squarespace: Walled Gardens

Maximum Simplicity, Minimum Control

Wix and Squarespace are fully managed website builders. Like Shopify, they handle all infrastructure security. The attack surface you expose is minimal: your admin account credentials and any third-party integrations you add.

From a pure security standpoint, these platforms are safe for what they do. The hosting is managed, the code is proprietary and not accessible to attackers in the same way as open-source CMS, and the customization options are limited enough that you cannot accidentally create a vulnerability.

The Walled Garden Problem

The limitations are significant. You cannot migrate easily. You cannot audit the security of the platform. You cannot implement advanced security headers, custom Content Security Policies, or specific compliance requirements. You cannot control where your data is stored or processed. For businesses with any regulatory requirements beyond basic GDPR compliance, this can be a disqualifier.

Performance is also a concern. Wix in particular has historically generated bloated HTML and JavaScript, which affects page load times and, indirectly, SEO. Squarespace is somewhat better in this regard but still limited compared to purpose-built solutions.

Wix/Squarespace Security Summary

Attack surface: Very small. Fully managed.
Update frequency needed: Not applicable. Platform handles everything.
Maintenance burden: Minimal.
Control: Very limited. Cannot customize security, cannot export easily.
Who should use it: Small businesses with simple website needs and no specific compliance requirements.

Headless CMS: API-First Architecture

Separating Content from Presentation

Headless CMS platforms like Strapi, Contentful, Sanity, and Directus separate the content management layer from the front-end presentation. You manage content through the CMS, and a separate front-end application (often built with a static site generator or a front-end framework) fetches content via API.

This architectural separation has security implications. The CMS admin interface can be isolated from the public internet (network-level separation). The front-end can be a static site with no server-side processing. The API layer can be locked down with authentication, rate limiting, and IP allowlists.

Self-Hosted vs. Cloud Headless CMS

There is an important distinction between self-hosted headless CMS (Strapi, Directus) and cloud-hosted headless CMS (Contentful, Sanity).

Self-hosted options like Strapi run on your server. You are responsible for server security, application updates, database management, and API security. The security burden is comparable to any other self-hosted application, though the attack surface is smaller than a traditional CMS because the public-facing front-end is decoupled.

Cloud-hosted options like Contentful handle the CMS infrastructure for you. Your security responsibility is limited to API key management, user access control, and the front-end application. This is a significantly smaller surface area.

Headless CMS Security Summary

Attack surface: Small to medium, depending on deployment model.
Update frequency needed: Varies. Cloud-hosted: managed. Self-hosted: regular updates required.
Maintenance burden: Low to medium.
Technical complexity: Higher. Requires front-end development expertise.
Who should use it: Teams with development capability who want content management with reduced attack surface.

Static Site Generators: The Smallest Attack Surface

No Server-Side Processing

Static site generators (SSGs) like Astro, Hugo, Next.js (in static export mode), and Eleventy produce plain HTML, CSS, and JavaScript files. There is no PHP, no database, no server-side runtime processing requests. The files are served directly by a web server or CDN.

This is the smallest possible attack surface for a website. There is nothing to exploit on the server because there is no application running on the server. SQL injection? There is no database. Remote code execution? There is no code executing. File upload vulnerabilities? There are no file upload handlers.

We have discussed this in depth in our analysis of static vs. dynamic website security.

What Static Sites Still Need

Static does not mean zero maintenance. The build toolchain (Node.js packages, Go modules, etc.) has dependencies that need updates. Any dynamic functionality added via JavaScript (contact forms, search, comments) introduces its own attack surface. And the hosting configuration (headers, HTTPS, access control) still needs to be correct.

But the baseline is dramatically better than any server-side CMS. A static site served from a CDN with correct headers is, from a security standpoint, about as safe as a website can be.

Static Site Generator Security Summary

Attack surface: Minimal. No server-side processing for page requests.
Update frequency needed: Monthly for build dependencies. Infrequent for the deployed site itself.
Maintenance burden: Low.
Technical complexity: Medium to high for initial setup. Low for ongoing content management with proper tooling.
Who should use it: Any business that does not need server-side dynamic functionality (user accounts, real-time data, complex e-commerce).

The Comparison Table

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the key security factors:

Factor	WordPress	Joomla	Drupal	Shopify	Wix/Squarespace	Headless CMS	Static SSG
Attack surface	Very large	Large	Medium-large	Small	Very small	Small-medium	Minimal
CVEs per year (core)	10-30	15-40	5-15	N/A (closed)	N/A (closed)	Varies	Near zero
Plugin/extension risk	Very high	High	Medium	Medium	Low	Low	N/A
Update frequency needed	Weekly	Monthly	Monthly	Managed	Managed	Varies	Monthly
Hosting flexibility	Full	Full	Full	None	None	Full/None	Full
Maintenance cost (CHF/yr)	2000-5000	2000-5000	3000-8000	Included	Included	500-3000	300-1500
Developer availability	Abundant	Declining	Limited	Moderate	Low need	Growing	Growing
Data control	Full	Full	Full	Limited	Very limited	Full/Shared	Full

CVE Counts: What the Numbers Tell Us

Raw CVE counts are not a perfect security metric, but they tell a story. Here are approximate figures for 2024:

WordPress ecosystem (core + plugins + themes): Over 5,000 CVEs. The vast majority (95%+) are in plugins and themes, not core.
Joomla ecosystem: Approximately 50-80 CVEs across core and extensions.
Drupal ecosystem: Approximately 30-50 CVEs across core and contributed modules.
Shopify: Not publicly tracked (closed source). Occasional bug bounty disclosures.
Wix/Squarespace: Not publicly tracked. Very few public disclosures.
Strapi: 5-15 CVEs per year.
Static site generators: Near zero for the generated output. Build toolchain CVEs exist but do not affect the deployed site.

The WordPress number is staggering, but context matters. WordPress has 60,000+ plugins and millions of installations. The per-site risk depends on which plugins you use and how well you maintain them. A WordPress site with five well-maintained plugins can be more secure than a Drupal site that has not been updated in a year.

The more telling metric is not total CVEs but the ratio of critical unauthenticated vulnerabilities to installed base. And on that metric, the self-hosted PHP-based CMSes consistently perform worse than hosted platforms and static sites.

Total Cost of Ownership Including Security

The cheapest CMS to build is not the cheapest CMS to own. Here is a five-year total cost of ownership comparison for a typical Swiss SME website, including security maintenance:

Cost Component	WordPress	Drupal	Shopify	Static (Astro/Hugo)
Initial build	CHF 5,000-15,000	CHF 15,000-40,000	CHF 3,000-10,000	CHF 8,000-20,000
Hosting (5 years)	CHF 1,500-5,000	CHF 2,500-8,000	CHF 4,500-9,000	CHF 0-500
Security maintenance (5 years)	CHF 10,000-25,000	CHF 15,000-40,000	CHF 0 (included)	CHF 1,500-7,500
Plugin/app licenses (5 years)	CHF 500-3,000	CHF 0-2,000	CHF 1,000-5,000	CHF 0-500
Incident response (estimated)	CHF 2,000-10,000	CHF 1,000-5,000	CHF 0-500	CHF 0-500
5-year total	CHF 19,000-58,000	CHF 33,500-95,000	CHF 8,500-24,500	CHF 9,500-29,000

The numbers are striking. WordPress is cheap to build but expensive to maintain securely. Drupal is expensive all around but justified for complex requirements. Shopify is cost-effective for e-commerce but locks you in. Static site generators have the lowest total cost of ownership for sites that do not need server-side dynamic functionality.

When Each CMS Makes Sense

Choose WordPress When

You need a specific plugin that only exists for WordPress (and you have verified it is actively maintained).
You have non-technical staff who need to manage content frequently and are familiar with the WordPress interface.
You have a budget and plan for ongoing security maintenance.
You accept the higher long-term maintenance cost.

Choose Drupal When

You have complex content structures, workflows, or permission requirements.
You have regulatory compliance needs that require fine-grained access control.
You have a budget for professional Drupal development and maintenance.
The project scope justifies the higher complexity and cost.

Choose Shopify When

E-commerce is your primary use case.
You want PCI DSS compliance handled for you.
You are willing to accept platform lock-in for reduced maintenance overhead.
Your customization needs fit within Shopify's Liquid templating system.

Choose Wix/Squarespace When

You need a simple brochure website with minimal dynamic functionality.
You have no technical staff and no budget for ongoing maintenance.
You have no specific compliance requirements beyond basic GDPR.
Long-term data portability is not a concern.

Choose a Headless CMS When

You want content management but not a traditional CMS front-end.
You have development capability to build and maintain a custom front-end.
You need to serve content to multiple channels (website, mobile app, digital signage).
You want to reduce the attack surface while keeping a CMS editing experience.

Choose a Static Site Generator When

Your website is primarily informational (company site, blog, documentation, portfolio).
You want the smallest possible attack surface.
You want the lowest total cost of ownership.
You want maximum performance (static files served from CDN = fastest possible page loads).
You have or can hire a developer for the initial build.

The Static-First Argument

If you are starting from scratch in 2025, here is my recommendation: default to static unless you have a specific reason not to.

A static site built with Astro, Hugo, or Next.js gives you:

The smallest attack surface of any web architecture.
The fastest page load times (static files from CDN).
The lowest hosting costs (many CDN/hosting providers offer free tiers for static sites).
The lowest maintenance burden.
Full control over your code and data.
No vendor lock-in.

The common objection is "but my clients need to edit content." This is solved. Tools like Decap CMS, Tina CMS, or Cloudcannon provide a visual editing interface that commits changes to a Git repository, triggering an automatic rebuild. The content editing experience can be as simple as WordPress, with none of the security overhead.

For e-commerce, you can add Shopify's Buy Button or Snipcart to a static site, getting the best of both worlds: a static, secure front-end with hosted e-commerce functionality.

The only cases where static does not work well are applications requiring real-time server-side processing: user authentication with persistent sessions, real-time data, complex transactional workflows. For these, a server-side application is necessary, but it still does not have to be WordPress.

Migration Considerations

If you are currently running WordPress, Joomla, or another traditional CMS and considering a migration, here are practical considerations:

Content export: WordPress and Drupal have good content export capabilities. Joomla's are weaker. Plan for manual content cleanup during migration.
URL preservation: Your existing URLs need to redirect properly to new URLs. Losing URL equity damages your search rankings.
Feature parity: Not every WordPress plugin has a static site equivalent. Identify your actual requirements vs. features you installed but never use.
Training: Your content editors will need to learn a new interface. Factor this into the timeline.
Phased migration: For complex sites, consider migrating sections progressively rather than doing a big-bang cutover.

Making the Decision

The right CMS depends on your specific needs, technical capability, and budget. But if security is a factor (and it should always be a factor), the hierarchy is clear:

Static site generators have the smallest attack surface and lowest maintenance burden.
Hosted platforms (Shopify, Squarespace, Wix) shift security responsibility to the provider but limit your control.
Headless CMS with a static front-end offers a good middle ground between editability and security.
Drupal is the most secure of the traditional self-hosted CMS options, but at higher cost and complexity.
WordPress is the most popular but requires the most ongoing security investment.
Joomla is not recommended for new projects due to declining community and support.

Whatever you choose, the platform alone does not make you secure. Configuration, maintenance, and ongoing vigilance determine whether your website is safe or compromised. If you need help evaluating your options or migrating from a vulnerable platform, reach out to us. We help Swiss businesses make informed technology decisions that account for security from the start.