Framer and Squarespace serve genuinely different intents, even though both show up in "best website builder" lists together.
Who each one is actually for
Squarespace is built around templates you customize, not a blank canvas you design from scratch. That's a feature, not a limitation — for a photographer, a small business, or anyone who wants a professional site without making a hundred design decisions, Squarespace's constraints are what make it fast. You pick a template, swap content, done.
Framer removes almost all of those guardrails. You're designing from a blank canvas with real layout control — closer to designing in Figma than filling in a template. That freedom is exactly what makes Framer appealing to designers and agencies who need something that doesn't look like a template, and exactly what makes it overkill for someone who just wants a clean site fast.
Where they're actually similar (and it matters)
Both are fully hosted platforms — you don't own the infrastructure, and both lock published output to their own hosting with no meaningful code export. If lock-in is a concern, this comparison is closer than the design-philosophy difference suggests: neither gives you a real way to leave with your site intact.
Pricing shape
Both charge monthly for hosting on top of whatever plan tier you need for custom domains, CMS, or e-commerce. Squarespace's tiers are simpler and more predictable; Framer's paid tiers scale with things like CMS item count and traffic, which can surprise people who started on a free/cheap plan and grew.
Which to actually pick
If you want speed and don't need pixel-level design control: Squarespace. If you want full design freedom and are comfortable with (or actively want) a more involved build process: Framer. If either concern is "what happens if I want to self-host later" — that's a real limitation on both, and for Framer specifically, a Framer-to-HTML or Framer-to-Next.js converter is currently the only practical way around it.