How Ghost changes the performance profile compared with wordpress
Ghost is a focused publishing platform built on Node.js with a lightweight templating system and a tight feature set centered on content delivery. That specialization usually means less runtime overhead than a typical WordPress stack that runs on php + mysql and often accumulates many plugins and heavy themes. Out of the box Ghost tends to produce smaller server-side stacks, fewer database queries per page, and predictable server memory/CPU use, which translates into lower Time to First Byte (TTFB) and often faster Core Web Vitals if the theme is optimized. But raw platform choice is only one part of the story , hosting, theme implementation, and front-end assets still drive the real-world outcome.
Server-side differences and what they mean for speed
WordPress generates pages through PHP execution and database queries; plugins and complex themes increase the number of queries and PHP processing time. Ghost compiles templates with Handlebars and serves content from a simpler runtime, so pages are generally cheaper to render CPU-wise. That makes Ghost more predictable under load and easier to scale vertically on a single instance. However, WordPress can be tuned aggressively with object caching, persistent object caches (Redis, memcached), full-page caches (Varnish, nginx config), and managed WordPress hosts that pre-warm caches , if those are in place, WordPress performance can approach or match Ghost for many traffic patterns.
Front-end impact: themes, assets, and Core Web Vitals
Front-end performance , the parts measured by Lighthouse and Google Core Web Vitals , depends mainly on theme design, JavaScript size, image handling, and how assets are delivered. Ghost themes are typically minimal by default and encourage server-rendered html, which reduces layout shifts and long JavaScript tasks. wordpress themes vary widely: some are extremely lean, while others ship large JS frameworks, loaders, and many third-party embeds that hurt Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) and Total Blocking Time (TBT). If you move content from WordPress to Ghost but keep the same heavy client-side scripts, you won’t gain much. Conversely, switching to Ghost while adopting a well-optimized theme, image optimization, and a CDN will usually yield noticeable improvements in PAGE LOAD metrics.
What improves most when moving to Ghost
- Lower TTFB from a leaner server stack and fewer DB hits per page.
- Smaller default themes and less client-side JS, improving LCP and TBT.
- Cleaner HTML output and less plugin bloat, reducing layout shifts and payload size.
- Built-in content APIs that make caching and headless setups easier to implement.
When performance gain is limited or negative
Performance improvements are not automatic. If your WordPress site is already optimized with good caching, cdn, lazy-loading, and an efficient theme, moving to Ghost may only provide marginal wins. You can also introduce new bottlenecks: self-hosted ghost requires Node process management, proper reverse proxy tuning, and careful memory provisioning; on undersized infrastructure it can be slower. If you add lots of third-party JavaScript, heavy images, or complex client-side rendering onto a Ghost theme, the end-user experience will suffer no matter the backend. Finally, running Ghost and WordPress together on the same server without resource isolation can create contention that reduces performance for both.
Hybrid setups and headless strategies
Many teams adopt a hybrid approach: keep WordPress for complex CMS features or plugins, and use Ghost for public-facing publishing or newsletters. Another option is a headless setup where either platform serves content to a static-site generator or an SSR frontend (Next.js, Gatsby). Those architectures can give the performance advantages of static delivery and CDN caching while preserving backend capabilities. The trade-offs are increased complexity, build pipelines, synchronization challenges, and the need to manage redirects and canonical urls for SEO.
Practical steps to measure and improve performance during migration
Before moving anything, run baseline measurements with Lighthouse, WebPageTest, and real-user monitoring if available. Track Core Web Vitals, TTFB, time to interactive, and payload size. If you proceed with Ghost, use these practical steps to preserve or improve speed: choose a minimal theme or trim JS, enable gzip/brotli compression at the server, deploy a fast CDN for assets, set proper caching headers, use image optimization (responsive images and modern formats like WebP/AVIF), and monitor memory/CPU on your Node host. If using managed Ghost(Pro) or a similar provider, many of the server-side optimizations are handled for you, which reduces operational work.
Checklist for a smooth migration or hybrid deployment
- Map and preserve important URLs; set 301s for old permalinks.
- Export structured data (schema.org microdata) and reapply it in the new theme.
- Minimize third-party scripts and embed only what is necessary.
- Use a CDN and enable HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 for parallel asset delivery.
- Run post-launch audits and compare Core Web Vitals to the baseline.
SEO and user experience considerations
Faster pages generally improve user engagement metrics and can indirectly benefit search rankings through better Core Web Vitals, lower bounce rates, and longer session times. But migration has SEO risks: missing redirects, changing permalink structures, lost metadata, or altered schema can cause traffic drops irrespective of speed increases. Keep canonical tags, meta descriptions, hreflang (if applicable), and internal linking intact. If you keep WordPress for certain areas and serve Ghost content on a subdomain, manage cross-domain canonicalization and ensure bots can crawl both areas properly.
Recommendations based on common scenarios
If your WordPress site is slow primarily because of plugin bloat, heavy themes, and unoptimized assets, migrating content to Ghost and adopting a clean theme can produce a clear performance uplift with less operational tuning. If WordPress performs well after careful optimization and you rely on its plugin ecosystem, it may be more efficient to optimize the existing site rather than migrate. For teams that want publishing-first workflows, fast front-end results, and fewer operational tasks, Ghost is attractive. For complex sites requiring extensive integrations, multisite features, or e-commerce plugins, WordPress may remain the more practical choice, with performance improved through caching and hosting.
Summary
Ghost can reduce backend overhead and encourage leaner front-end output, often improving TTFB and Core Web Vitals compared with an unoptimized WordPress site. The actual performance outcome depends on theme quality, hosting, caching strategy, and how much third-party JavaScript you load. Measure before and after, preserve SEO-critical elements during any migration, and use CDNs, compression, and image optimization to amplify gains. Both platforms can deliver high performance when configured correctly; the right choice comes down to feature needs, team skills, and hosting preferences.
FAQs
Will switching to Ghost automatically make my site faster?
Not automatically. Ghost reduces server-side complexity and encourages simpler themes, which helps, but front-end assets, images, and third-party scripts still determine user-perceived speed. You must adopt an optimized theme, enable CDN and compression, and follow performance best practices to see meaningful gains.
Can I run WordPress and Ghost together without hurting performance?
Yes, if you isolate resources properly. Use separate servers or containers, front them with a reverse proxy, and avoid running both on a single undersized instance. host static assets on a CDN and monitor resource usage to prevent contention.
How does Ghost affect SEO compared to WordPress?
Ghost can improve SEO indirectly by improving page speed and user experience, but migration risks exist. Maintain redirects, metadata, structured data, and canonical tags to preserve rankings. Technical SEO work during migration is essential.
Is managed Ghost hosting better for performance than self-hosting?
Managed hosting often provides tuned infrastructure, automatic updates, and optimized caching, which reduces the operational burden and can improve performance for most users. Self-hosting gives you more control but requires experience to match managed performance.
What tools should I use to compare performance before and after migration?
Use Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights for lab metrics, WebPageTest for detailed waterfall and TTFB analysis, and Real User Monitoring (RUM) tools for field data. Compare Core Web Vitals, TTFB, LCP, CLS, and JavaScript payload size to evaluate impact.
