How Durable Handles SEO Compared to Traditional Builders
Durable markets itself as a fast, AI-powered website builder for small businesses.
After using it to build the IWCON 2025 conference site, I’d describe it more precisely as this:
Durable is SEO-safe by default, but not SEO-maximal by design.
That distinction matters, especially when you compare it to traditional builders like WordPress, Wix, or Squarespace.
What Durable gets right for SEO (out of the box)
The first thing that surprised me while testing Durable was how little I had to fix structurally.
1. Clean page structure from the first draft
When Durable generated the IWCON site, it produced:
- A single, clear hero headline
- Logically ordered sections (About → Speakers → Schedule → FAQs → CTA)
- No obvious heading chaos
I didn’t need to reorganize the layout to make it readable for users or crawlers.
Compared to traditional builders:
In WordPress or Wix, this depends heavily on:
- the theme you choose
- how you configure page builders
- whether you understand heading hierarchy
Durable removes those decisions upfront.
2. SEO basics are handled automatically
Durable automatically generates:
- Meta titles and descriptions
- Mobile-responsive layouts
- A sitemap and indexable pages
For a fast-launch business or event site, this means you’re not publishing something that’s accidentally invisible to search engines.
Compared to traditional builders:
With WordPress, you’d typically install and configure:
- an SEO plugin
- sitemap settings
- indexing preferences
Durable skips all of that setup friction.
Where Durable falls short compared to traditional builders
This is where the “speed vs control” tradeoff becomes obvious.
3. Limited image-level SEO control
One issue I ran into immediately was image handling.
When I regenerated images for the team/speaker section, Durable repeatedly served generic stock photos. To maintain credibility, I had to:
- Upload custom headshots manually
- Rewrite bios to sound more specific and human
Alt text control exists, but it’s not as granular or workflow-friendly as WordPress.
Why this matters for SEO:
Images are contextual signals. Stock visuals with weak alt text reduce topical relevance and trust.
4. Limited long-term SEO flexibility
Durable is built for speed, not ongoing SEO iteration.
You don’t get:
- Advanced content management
- Blog-first workflows
- Plugin-level extensibility
- Easy migration paths like a WordPress export
If IWCON were turning into a content-heavy, SEO-driven publication, Durable wouldn’t be my final platform.
Compared to traditional builders:
WordPress still wins when:
- content volume grows
- internal linking becomes complex
- performance tuning matters long-term
Durable is designed to launch, not to scale indefinitely.
The comparison: Durable vs traditional builders
Here’s the simplest way I’d frame it after testing:
- Durable → SEO-safe launch tool
- WordPress → SEO-strong growth tool
Durable ensures:
- your site isn’t structurally broken
- you don’t forget SEO basics
- you can publish quickly without technical debt
Traditional builders give you:
- deeper control
- more SEO leverage over time
- more responsibility (and more setup)
When Durable is the right SEO choice
Durable makes sense if:
- You need a professional site live now
- SEO is important, but not your primary growth engine
- The site has a clear goal (event, service, local business)
- You’re okay trading flexibility for speed
That’s exactly why it worked well for the IWCON test.
Bottom line
Durable doesn’t “do SEO for you” in the way WordPress plugins promise to.
Instead, it prevents bad SEO decisions by default.
This is often more valuable for non-technical users:
If your priority is launching fast with a site that search engines can understand, Durable delivers. If your priority is long-term content growth and SEO experimentation, traditional builders still win.
If you want to see how Durable compares to other AI website builders I tested using the same IWCON setup, I documented the full comparison here.
Affiliate disclosure
Some of the links in this article are affiliate links. If you choose to purchase through them, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.
That said, every review, test, and comparison in this piece is based on my own hands-on use of the tools discussed. I test these products with real writing examples, note both strengths and limitations, and include tools only if they add genuine value. Compensation never influences rankings, recommendations, or conclusions.
I believe transparency matters — especially when writing about AI tools — and I’ll always prioritize accuracy and honesty over affiliate incentives.