Wix, WordPress & Lovable Migrations

Wix has no clean export, so the site is rebuilt rather than transferred. Content, images and structure come across, every existing URL is mapped to its new address with a 301 redirect, and the domain is pointed at the new host once it is live. Typically one to three weeks for a standard business site.

Three recurring ones. Page speed you cannot fix, because you do not control the code they ship. Structural SEO limits, including how URLs and markup are generated. And a monthly fee that rises while the site stays the same. For a brochure site that never changes, they are a reasonable trade. For a business that depends on search, they are a ceiling.

Usually it is plugin load, an unoptimised theme, uncompressed images and a shared host, in that order. Often that is fixable in place for far less than a rebuild, and I will tell you if that is your situation. A rebuild is worth it when the plugin stack has become the site, when updates keep breaking things, or when the security surface has grown beyond what the site is worth.

Yes, that is one of the most common jobs I get now. The screens and product thinking usually survive. What gets rebuilt is the part these tools leave incomplete: database access rules, authentication enforced on the server, secrets moved out of client-side code, payments, backups and deployment.

You can export it, and hosting it is the easy part. The reason people call me afterwards is that the exported project usually still has open database policies, keys in the client bundle and no error tracking. Export solves ownership, not readiness.

Usually, yes. The gap between preview and live is almost always the same few things: environment settings that only exist in the builder, database rules that were open in preview, and sign-in that was never checked on the server. I audit it first, then quote a fixed price to get it working and safe.

Stop prompting and get the code looked at. Once a project is in that loop, each change is made without knowing what the last one did. A technical code review tells you what is solid, what is broken and whether it is quicker to fix or rebuild, before you spend more on credits.

Yes. Bolt, v0, Cursor and similar tools leave the same gaps behind: security rules, server-side checks, error tracking and a proper deployment. The tool matters less than what it skipped, and the fix follows the same route: audit, fixed price, then a codebase you own.

Not if the redirects are done properly. Every old URL points at its new equivalent with a 301, which passes ranking signals across. Rankings often improve afterwards, because the new site is faster and server-rendered. Losses happen when someone skips the URL mapping, which is the first thing I build, not the last.

A standard business site is one to three weeks. A larger site with hundreds of URLs, or a half-built app, takes longer. Send me your current site on WhatsApp and I will come back with a fixed-price statement of work after a free discovery call, alongside what the new setup costs to run so you can compare it with what you pay the platform now.

Yes. We set up an editing workflow that fits how you actually work, whether that is a proper CMS, a simple content file, or messaging me the new text.