This comparison was first published in September 2025. Gutenberg is WordPress’s native block editor, while third-party page builders offer their own editing workflows. The percentages below are the original article’s estimates, not a current census of editor usage.
WordPress page-builder share at a glance
The table preserves the original September 2025 estimates for context. Its inputs were rounded website-detection figures; they have not been remeasured for this update. A detected builder share and an editor’s active usage are different things.
| Builder | ≈ Share of all websites | ≈ Share inside WordPress |
|---|---|---|
| Elementor | ~12.9% | ~29.8% |
| WPBakery | ~3.8% | ~8.8% |
| Beaver Builder | ~0.4% | ~0.9% |
| Oxygen | ~0.2% | ~0.5% |
| Divi Builder | ~0.1% | ~0.23% |
| Bricks | ~0.1% | ~0.23% |
| Thrive Architect | ~0.1% | ~0.23% |
These figures cannot tell us how many sites actively use Gutenberg. A site may use both a builder and native blocks, and the remainder also contains Classic Editor and custom workflows.
So how big is Gutenberg?
There is no editor-usage census established by this article. W3Techs’ WordPress technology report is useful context, but subtracting detected builders from WordPress’s total does not measure Gutenberg adoption.
- Gutenberg is now the most common editor across WordPress installations.
- Classic Editor usage continues to taper, though it remains significant on legacy or highly customized sites.
- Legacy builders (e.g., WPBakery) have been trending down, while Elementor remains strong and newer builders (Bricks, Oxygen) occupy niche but growing segments.
Use the original figures as historical context only. For a migration decision, inventory the actual templates, plugins and editing workflows on your own sites.
- Gutenberg: no measured share established by this article.
- Third-party builders: original rounded estimates only.
- Classic/no-builder/custom: cannot be separated from the remainder using this method.
The original 50–60% Gutenberg estimate was an inference, not a measured count. It should not be used to support a current market-share claim.
Is Gutenberg growing or shrinking?
The block editor’s capabilities continue to develop, but this article does not establish a measured adoption trend. Reasons a team may consider it include:
- Core keeps improving (Patterns, Layouts, Data Views, Interactivity API, Site Editor).
- Theme + pattern ecosystems are maturing, reducing the need for heavy builder stacks.
- Performance and maintainability pressures (Core Web Vitals, fewer plugins, simpler DOM) favor native blocks for many marketing sites.
At the same time, Elementor remains popular—especially for freelancer and agency workflows that rely on its design system, widget library, and established processes.
Choosing your stack in 2025 and coming into 2026
Pick Gutenberg if you want:
- A core-first approach with fewer moving parts and good performance
- A clean hand-off to content teams who already know WordPress
- Easy reuse via Patterns, Synced Patterns, and the Site Editor
Pick a third-party builder if you want:
- A unified design system and large widget ecosystem out of the box (Elementor)
- Pixel-precise control and opinionated workflows (e.g., Bricks/Oxygen for dev-heavy builds)
- A familiar stack that your team delivers quickly with today
Hybrid is common: Many teams standardize on Gutenberg for most builds, but keep one builder in the toolbox for specific use-cases or legacy constraints.
Method notes (how these numbers were derived)
- Start with the share of all websites for each builder and for WordPress overall.
- Convert to an inside-WordPress share by dividing builder share by WordPress share.
- Sum the major builders to estimate the combined third-party builder share within WordPress.
- The remainder cannot be attributed to Gutenberg: it includes Classic Editor, custom workflows and potentially mixed builder/block sites.
Frequently asked questions
This article preserves estimates from September 2025. They are not current measurements, and detected builder share does not establish Gutenberg’s share.
The editor continues to develop, but this article does not provide a measured adoption trend. Review current primary data before quoting growth figures.
Compare the editing workflow, required integrations, accessibility, maintainability and performance on a representative page. Neither approach guarantees faster or more accessible output.
Your best choice depends on team skills, site type, and longevity. If you’re starting fresh in 2025, Gutenberg is the safest default, with a builder reserved for cases where its strengths clearly outweigh the added complexity.
Choose an editing workflow on the strength of the site’s requirements and your team’s skills, rather than an unsupported market-share estimate.
Third-party builders remain a valid option for teams whose projects rely on their templates, integrations or established design workflows.
