How Much Does a Website Cost in 2026

The price of a website is almost always explained by three variables: how much content has to be produced, how many integrations it needs with existing systems, and how much custom logic sits behind the interface. Design matters less than people expect; what drives cost up is connecting the site to an ERP, a CRM or a gateway with particular rules.

The second variable, the one nobody asks about and which decides the outcome, is who writes the copy and who produces the photography. A project that arrives with content ready moves; one waiting for the client to send it stalls for weeks, and that stall is not free for either side.

• Number of unique pages, not repeated templates
• Integrations with existing systems (ERP, CRM, invoicing)
• Who produces copy and images, and by when
• Whether content and URLs must be migrated from an old site
• Languages: each multiplies content, not just translation

In the Spanish market in 2026, a well-executed single-page landing runs between EUR 800 and 2,000. A five to ten page corporate site with a blog, between 2,500 and 6,000. A simple online store with a contained catalogue and a standard gateway, between 6,000 and 15,000. Beyond that you are no longer talking about websites but about applications.

These figures assume professional development with original content. Below the low end there is usually a template with the logo swapped, which is a legitimate option if the goal is to exist online and little else; what is not legitimate is selling it as something else.

• Single-page landing: EUR 800-2,000
• Corporate site with blog: EUR 2,500-6,000
• Standard online store: EUR 6,000-15,000
• Custom web application: from EUR 15,000
• Redesign over existing content: 40-60% of a new site

A website costs money after delivery, and many quotes leave that out because it does not help close the sale. Domain, hosting, certificate, professional email and maintenance add up to between EUR 30 and 200 a month depending on the project. Ignoring it does not make it disappear: it turns it into an unexpected invoice in month three.

On top of that there is what is not infrastructure: content changes, adapting to new regulation and dependency updates. An honest quote states what is included and for how long, and what is billed separately, with a written hourly rate.

• Domain: EUR 10-40 a year
• Hosting: from EUR 5 a month shared, more on VPS or cloud
• Maintenance: EUR 50-300 a month depending on cover
• Third-party licences: fonts, maps, search, paid plugins
• Hours for minor changes: get them quoted upfront

It is normal to receive three quotes differing by an order of magnitude, and it is rarely because one is inflated: it is that they are not the same job. Before looking at the figure you have to level the scope. The practical way is to send all three the same list of pages, integrations and deliverables, and ask for a breakdown against that list.

Then it is worth asking three concrete questions that separate one supplier from another more than price does: where the code lives, who absorbs changes during development, and what happens the day the contract ends.

• Is the repository created in my account from day one?
• Are the domain and hosting in my name?
• How many rounds of changes are included in the price?
• What happens if we stop working together halfway?
• Who is responsible if the site stops meeting regulation?

The most reliable warning sign is a fixed, very low price offered without asking anything about the project. Nobody can quote a website without knowing how many pages it has or what it integrates with, so that figure is either a template or a commercial anchor that will rise once work starts.

The second is the absence of a breakdown. A single line reading "web development" makes comparison impossible, makes disputes impossible and, above all, makes cutting impossible: if you do not know which part costs what, you cannot decide what to drop when the budget falls short.

• A fixed price with no prior questions about the project
• A single line with no itemised breakdown
• Code or domain registered in the supplier's name
• "Unlimited" rounds of changes, which never are
• No delivery date and no written intermediate milestones

If the budget falls short, what gets cut is scope, not quality. Launching with five well-made pages and adding the rest in three months works; launching with twenty half-finished pages does not, because weak content gets indexed and drags the rest of the site with it.

What should never be cut is performance, basic accessibility and technical SEO. Those three are not things you "add later": they force a rebuild, and then the initial saving is paid back several times over.

• Cut pages, not the finish of the ones that ship
• Defer non-critical integrations to phase two
• Start in one language and add the second when there is traffic
• Do not cut performance, accessibility or technical SEO
• Reserve budget for the three months after launch