As you can see, wordpress has been steadily increasing its market share by ~ 1-4% (in overall market share figures) for the past 8 years. And it shows no signs of slowing down. And of the world's websites that were created with an identifiable CMS, Wordpress accounted for a whopping 65.3% of them. Its closest competitor, Shopify, is still a distant second, driving only 4.4% of sites sampled.
In the last five years, WordPress has gone from being used by 32.7% of the 10 million most visited websites in the world, to being used by 43%, surpassing the growth of all its competitors. The chart below shows how WordPress's market share has grown over time compared to other platforms. This graph shows how open source competitors Joomla and Drupal are losing market share relative to WordPress. In fact, WordPress is the only open source system with a significant market share to keep growing.
Shopify, Wix and Squarespace are also growing, however, they run on proprietary platforms. Looking at Ahrefs for a comparison, we can see that, surprisingly, people searched for Wix 6.8 million times versus WordPress, which was searched 5.8 million times. However, you should keep in mind that Wix is a publicly traded company and that a fair share of the stake in Wix could come from shareholders. This can give us an idea of the interest in these two companies and perhaps a little information about their comparative sizes.
We've also done a qualitative comparison of Wix and WordPress, in case you're interested. The introduction of WooCommerce (which was acquired by Automattic in 2017) has helped WordPress stay competitive and relevant in the area of e-commerce. Very competitive, in fact, since WooCommerce's market share is also impressive. It's unrealistic to expect any CMS to make a profit every month, even if it has grown steadily in the past.
WordPress remains by far the market leader, but many see the further decline in market share as a symptom of a deeper problem. No one can definitively say why WordPress is losing market share, but the community has some prevailing theories. W3Techs is the main source of CMS usage statistics. WordPress offers more options than any other CMS platform, which is only part of what makes it the most popular.
In fact, recent data also shows that Shopify has reached its peak market share and has even started to decline as businesses flee the platform. And on the other side of the problem, are all these affiliate marketers exaggerating the benefits and confusing users even more?. The WordPress CMS should contact and cooperate with web developers to create good products that can solve and replace many plugins and other tools. WordPress was the original blogging platform, so you'd think that its user base is personal blogs and small-scale websites.
Because it is unable to detect the CMS for 36.4% of websites, information about WordPress's market share depends on how you look at it. Today, WordPress has overcome the limitations of those rudimentary blogging platforms and has played a huge role in changing the image of the web. The big problem with WordPress is that you have to install a lot of plugins, try a lot of themes until you can create a complete basic site that can meet the minimum user experience needs. It seems that your marketing is arousing curiosity for business owners, but the product can't keep them as long-term customers.
WordPress administration should stop living in echo chambers and contact real-life users and developers. And it's a distraction from the real work on the APIs that WordPress needs to keep improving like cms and crm. WordPress's shrinking market share throws a birdie for everyone to tweet their frustrations with the WordPress project. WordPress hosts around the world should work harder for their clients' sites to perform better as well.
While it's always good to stay in the competition, it's safe to say that WordPress is still the most popular content management system on the Internet. WordPress was created by an American developer, Matt Mullenweg, and an English developer, Mike Little, which meant that it was initially available in English. . .
