WordPress
Best for
- Most mid-size nonprofits CauseHouse works with
- Teams needing CRM and donation plugin ecosystems
Avoid if
- Zero appetite for updates and security ownership
Drupal is powerful. Most nonprofit teams do not have Drupal engineers. WordPress is often the practical house — if you fund maintenance and resist plugin chaos.
CauseHouse implements WordPress and Next.js. Drupal appears here as a realistic alternative many RFPs still mention — not as a platform we build on.

| Criterion | WordPress | Drupal |
|---|---|---|
| Cost considerations | Lower barrier to launch; maintenance is the real cost. | Higher build and specialist costs. |
| Staff capacity | Easier hiring and training for editors. | Harder to staff without a Drupal partner. |
| Customization | Flexible themes, ACF, custom code. | Excellent content modeling when done well. |
| Accessibility | Achievable with discipline. | Achievable with discipline — tools alone do not save you. |
| Maintenance | Needs a care plan. | Needs a care plan and scarcer talent. |
| Integrations | Huge nonprofit SaaS ecosystem. | Strong for custom integrations; fewer turnkey nonprofit plugins. |
| Scalability | Scales with architecture. | Scales with architecture and expertise. |
| Ease of use | Generally higher for editors. | Steeper for occasional publishers. |
| Security | Update hygiene decides outcomes. | Strong when maintained; neglected Drupal is still risky. |
| SEO | Excellent potential. | Excellent potential; slower iteration can hurt. |
| Migration complexity | Common destination CMS. | Leaving Drupal needs careful content mapping. |
Best for
Avoid if
Best for
Avoid if
Inventory who will publish and who will patch.
List required CRM/donation integrations.
Price three years of maintenance, not the launch PDF.
Choose the CMS your partners can actually support.