B2B websites are often treated as 'company profiles compiling information.' However, from a designer's perspective, a website is an interface that consistently executes the brand within a single screen and guides the user to take their next action. The choice of tools not only determines the method of production but also affects brand expression, component quality, collaboration methods, and operational fatigue in the long run. This piece minimizes technical terms and compares five build methods based on the criteria designers actually experience.

First, what are the criteria for designers?

1) Brand Expression

The consistent appearance of the brand's tone, mood, color, and typography across the screen is key. It's not just about matching the logo, font, and color. To bring the brand's atmosphere to life, elements like the layout grid, spacing, speed and curve of interactions, and rhythm of section transitions must also be unified.

2) Components and Reuse

It's crucial to create blocks like 'hero, case card, FAQ, pricing table, and CTA bar' into reusable components. A structure that reflects changes across all pages with a single modification is ideal. This simultaneously influences design quality and operational speed.

3) Editing Experience and Collaboration

Focuses on post-launch operations. It's about how easily marketers and salespeople can change text and images on live screens, and how quickly designers can assemble new sections that dictate productivity. An environment where designers don't become bottlenecks for every edit request is desirable.

4) Multilingual, Accessibility, and Readability

B2B often requires multilingual capabilities. As the number of languages increases, issues with length, line breaks, and spacing arise. It's important that basic accessibility factors like Korean readability (letter-spacing, line-spacing, paragraph spacing), contrast, and focus indicators are implemented without compromising design.

5) Operational Fatigue

Campaigns are replaced every quarter, and case studies are added. It’s crucial to ensure that repetitive tasks like image replacement, list sorting, and section order changes are stress-free, and that design quality doesn’t easily deteriorate. These are the hidden variables in tool selection.

Comparison of 5 Major Website Build Tools

1. Code Build: Unconstrained Expression, High Maintenance Complexity

Code Build has the least constraints on design expression. You can refine layout, scroll narrative, motion speed, and curves to your desired level, and respond reliably to demands where consistency is important, such as large-scale brand systems or dark mode. From a component perspective, you can accurately transfer a design system into code, maintaining high long-term consistency. However, adding and modifying components requires collaboration between designers and developers, and it's clear that direct designer involvement becomes difficult post-launch for repetitive edits. Even trivial copy changes can lead to queues, so unless an editing-exclusive flow is separately designed, bottlenecks are likely to accumulate. The freedom comes with the risk that if the initial design is unstable, operational costs could rise, and its strengths are maximized when structure and principles are sharply defined. It’s a valid choice when maintaining a sophisticated brand system over the long term or where deep interaction with the product is necessary.

2. Cafe24: Catalog-Centric Operation

Cafe24 excels in catalog and card-type information structures. It reliably represents standardized layouts such as product lists, options, badges, and comparison charts, maintaining high consistency in repetitive blocks, so the screen doesn’t easily collapse during operation. The freedom to design is limited, making it unsuitable for unique interactions and bold layout experiments. From a collaboration and editing perspective, because marketers and MDs can easily change content themselves, designers can reduce their post-launch interventions if template guides are clearly defined. For companies with high brand immersion, the screen may feel flat, which is a downside. It excels in B2B where the flow from catalog to inquiry or order is clear and product groups and specs are clearly organized.

3. Imweb: Fast Release and Simple Operation

Imweb offers an assembly-like experience that is advantageous for fast publication and frequent updates. The page-level configuration is aesthetically sufficient, and adding sections and changing placements are simple, making it suitable for implementing branding brochure-style sites quickly. From a component perspective, it efficiently constructs basic blocks like case cards and inquiry sections, particularly effective for early-stage MVP sites. During operation, the process for directly replacing text and images by the person in charge is natural, and designers can maintain quality with periodic style checks. The limitation is that as the scale increases, design distinctiveness may dilute, so if a unique pattern is needed long-term, it’s safer to plan expansions concurrently. It’s valid where rapid publication and lightweight operation are key.

4. WordPress: Content Hub-Centric

WordPress provides a moderate level of design freedom with its theme and block-based system. Using a visual editor allows fast assembly, but there are constraints on completely creative performances. It excels in a content-accumulating structure, being highly efficient in teams focused on long-term publications like case studies, guides, and reports. Once categories, tags, and templates are organized, consistency is maintained, and it is advantageous for orderly expanding large archives. However, the editor environment can feel complex, so documenting an operational guide is essential for stable operation. If functions are indiscriminately expanded, screen quality can falter, so it’s advisable to minimize to essential functions and clearly set design guardrails. It exerts intrinsic strength in B2B focused on content hubs.

5. Framer: Brand Immersion and Variant-Based Assembly

Framer offers a visual editing environment familiar to designers, allowing natural assembly of hero displays, scroll motions, and microinteractions. It's easy to refine the size and line spacing of Hangul typography, contrast, and spacing according to the screen flow, and aligning screen transition rhythms with the brand tone is simple. From a component perspective, you can expand blocks like case cards and pricing tables consistently by defining reusable units and designing variants. In operation, it supports direct text and image replacements on live screens after launch, enabling natural role-sharing where designers assemble new sections and marketers instantly reflect copy. In very vast content hubs or complex multilingual operations, a supplementary strategy is needed, and since its ecosystem for add-ons is limited, some functions rely on external scripts. It’s particularly suitable for B2B where brand immersion and the speed of production and revision are equally important.

Summary of Recommended Tools by Situation

Conclusion

Tools are merely devices for a purpose. Designers compare choices across four axes: brand expression, component reuse, editing and collaboration experience, and operational fatigue. Framer stands out in brand immersion and speed, WordPress excels in content accumulation, Cafe24 is strong in catalog consistency, Imweb offers initial acceleration, and custom development excels in precision and scalability. Regardless of the choice, when the hierarchy and rhythm of the entire page, readabilty and contrast, and pattern consistency are maintained, designs gain strength over time. We hope this article aids you in choosing a meaningful tool.