What a B2B website costs in Europe, and what actually moves the number

Every cost guide gives you a range. £1,500 to £100,000. 500 € to 30,000 €. Under £500 for a DIY build, £200,000 for enterprise. The ranges are accurate. They are also close to useless, because none of them tell you which decisions put your project at one end or the other.

I bill 2,240 € + VAT per week. A typical marketing site takes two to five weeks, so most projects I take on land between 4,500 € and 11,000 €. That is the number. The rest is about why it moves.

The short answer

If you want a professionally built B2B marketing site in Europe, the honest bracket is roughly 2,500 € to 25,000 €.

Below about 2,500 € you are buying a template with your content poured into it. That is a real product and sometimes the right one. Above about 25,000 € you are usually paying for a team, several stakeholders, and the coordination that comes with both.

The middle is where most B2B sites should sit, and it is the part nobody writes about, because a range is easier to publish than the reasoning behind it.

What moves a quote from 2,500 € to 25,000 €

Six things, roughly in order of how much they move it.

The biggest is whether your content exists, and almost nobody quotes for it. If you have final copy for every page, a build is a build. If you have an old site and a vague sense that the messaging is wrong, someone has to fix the messaging first, and that is not a design task. Projects stall here, not in development.

Then count templates instead of pages. Forty pages that share three templates is a small job. Eight pages that each look different is a big one. Ask for a quote based on layouts rather than URLs and you will predict the price better than the person quoting you.

A CMS is the next step up, and the cost sits in the modelling rather than the building. Someone has to decide which parts editors can break and write the fields so a marketer can use them without calling you. That takes longer than hardcoding the same pages. It pays for itself the moment you start publishing regularly.

Integrations are where estimates go wrong, because each one is a small project with its own way of breaking. A contact form that emails you is an afternoon. A form that validates server side, deduplicates, posts to a CRM, fires an analytics event and still behaves sensibly when the CRM is down is a week. Analytics with consent gating is its own piece of work, since doing it properly means nothing loads before the visitor agrees.

Two languages is not twice the work, but it is not a 10 percent uplift either. The expensive parts are locale-prefixed routing, translated slugs, hreflang that only points at pages which genuinely exist, and a language switcher that lands on the counterpart page rather than the home page. I run a bilingual site. The routing took longest, not the translation.

Last, whether a design system exists. If you have components and a type scale, every new page is cheap. If you do not, the first three pages carry the cost of inventing them, which is why a five page site is sometimes more expensive per page than a thirty page one.

Scope, weeks, and totals

Derived from the weekly rate, so treat these as arithmetic rather than a guarantee:

If your project does not look like one of those three rows, the rows are wrong, not your project. Ask and I will tell you which weeks it needs.

What a cheap site costs you later

This is not a moral argument. A cheap site has two specific failure modes.

The first is that you cannot change it. Templates resist editing in ways that are invisible until you try. You wanted to add a case study section, and it turns out every page is a one off, so the change is a rebuild.

The second is that nobody owns the whole thing. A designer delivered files, a developer built what the files showed, and the gap between them became yours. Six months later a page loads slowly and neither of them thinks it is their problem.

If either failure would cost you more than the price difference, the cheap version was not cheaper. If neither would, it was.

Ongoing costs

Running a site is genuinely cheap now, and some quotes inflate this part.

Hosting for a marketing site with normal traffic runs from nothing to about 20 € a month on modern platforms. A domain is 10 to 20 € a year. A hosted CMS with a few editors is usually 0 to 100 € a month depending on seats. UK guides quote maintenance from £50 to well over £1,000 a month, and the top of that range is a retainer for work, not a hosting bill.

What costs money over time is dependency updates and the occasional framework migration. Budget a few days a year, or accept that the site slowly becomes harder to change.

My rate, and what a week contains

2,240 € + VAT per week. One person doing design and implementation, so there is no handoff in the middle and no gap for the work to fall into.

A week is a real week of my time, not a slice of it across four clients. You get working software at the end of each one, deployed where you can look at it, which means you can stop after week two if week two was enough.

I publish the rate because asking for it over email wastes both our time when the numbers do not match.

When to hire someone cheaper

Hire cheaper if your site is five pages or fewer, your copy is written, and you do not intend to measure what the site does for your pipeline. There are good inexpensive builders in Finland and across Europe, and several of them rank above this page for the same search.

Call me when the site is part of how you sell, when there are integrations that have to keep working, or when the last redesign stalled because no single person was responsible for the whole thing.