Format vs Squarespace

Photographers shortlist these two more than any other pair, and the templates are not what separates them. Both produce something that looks professional without a designer. The question is what the site has to do besides look good.

Tools for the job versus tools for a site

Format is built around a working photographer. Private client proofing galleries are part of the product, prints and downloads sell without a commission on top, and the whole structure treats a body of work as the primary unit rather than a page.

Squarespace is a general builder that happens to be good at galleries. It will present the work beautifully and has the stronger editor, the larger template library and the more capable store for anything that is not a print. What it does not have is client proofing as a first-class idea.

For someone whose photography is a business with clients, that gap is the decision. For someone whose photography is a portfolio to be seen, it is irrelevant and the broader tool wins.

What each really costs

Format's advertised middle-tier rate is a first-year promotional code; the standing rate published in its help centre is roughly a third higher, and a branded email address is a further hundred dollars a year on every tier. Connecting a domain you already own carries no plan gate, so the cheapest tier qualifies.

Squarespace has no free tier at all — a trial, then a decision — and its pricing does not use introductory rates in the same way. It does document a real export covering pages and posts, where Format's exit is less clear.

Which should you choose?

Choose Format if clients are involved: proofing galleries, print sales without commission, and a structure that assumes shoots rather than pages. Budget for the second-year price, not the advertised one.

Choose Squarespace if the site is a portfolio plus the rest of a business — writing, services, a shop selling something other than prints — and you want the better editor and a documented way out.