ACF Pro vs Gutenberg: When to Switch and How to Do It Right in WordPress

Is It Time to Ditch ACF Pro for Native Gutenberg? This question is increasingly common in WordPress projects—especially where speed, editability, and Core Web Vitals compliance matter. This article won’t give you simple answers. Instead, you’ll get real-world scenarios, design decisions, and a migration checklist.

🔍 Why Consider Switching at All?

ACF Pro is a powerful tool: flexible fields, fast setup, full control over data structure. But:

• Gutenberg has matured: blocks are modular, render faster in the editor, and many clients expect a “visual” editing experience.
• Core Web Vitals favor native solutions—less JS, fewer external libraries.
• Reduced dependencies – fewer plugins = lower update risk.

🧠 When Should You Stick with ACF Pro?

Stay with ACF if:

• You’re building custom post types with complex data structures (e.g. directories, portfolios with relationships).
• You need precise control over HTML and semantics (e.g. for technical SEO).
• You work with multilingual content and want full control over fields in Polylang/WPML.
• Your client prefers a simple backend with fields and doesn’t want to “tinker” in the editor.

🧭 When Is Gutenberg the Better Choice?

Consider migrating if:

• You’re building landing pages with dynamic sections that clients want to edit themselves.
• You want to use Reusable Blocks and Patterns for rapid prototyping.
• Your site needs to be lightweight, fast, and compliant with FID/LCP/CLS.
• You work with agencies that expect “standard” WordPress without a custom backend.

🛠️ How to Migrate Smoothly – Step by Step

1. Map ACF fields → Gutenberg blocks
   Example: image → Image Block, wysiwyg → Paragraph + Heading, repeater → Group Block.
2. Build custom blocks with block.json
   Create blocks using React/JSX or PHP render callbacks for custom functionality.
3. Use InnerBlocks and templateLock
   Control editor structure while keeping flexibility.
4. Optimize CSS and JS
   Remove ACF dependencies and load only necessary styles.
5. Test client UX
   Ensure the editor is intuitive and layout-safe. Lock features if needed.

🧱 Example block.json – Custom Gutenberg Block

To replace an ACF field (e.g. hero_title), start with:

{
"apiVersion": 2,
"name": "vasili/hero-title",
"title": "Hero Title",
"category": "text",
"icon": "heading",
"description": "Custom hero title block",
"supports": {
"html": false
},
"attributes": {
"content": {
"type": "string",
"source": "html",
"selector": "h1"
}
},
"editorScript": "file:./hero-title.js",
"render": "file:./render.php"
}}

This block lets the client edit the heading visually, but renders it via PHP—giving full control over semantics and structure.

🧩 Example render_callback in PHP

To retain control over HTML (e.g. for SEO or accessibility), use:

function render_hero_title_block( $attributes ) {
$content = isset( $attributes['content'] ) ? esc_html( $attributes['content'] ) : '';
return '<h1 class="hero-title">' . $content . '</h1>';
}

register_block_type( 'vasili/hero-title', array(
'render_callback' => 'render_hero_title_block',
) );

This allows you to:

• Add CSS classes aligned with your BEM system
• Control heading levels (h1, h2, etc.) based on page context
• Filter content for multilingual versions or A/B testing

📈 SEO & Core Web Vitals – Who Wins?

🧪 Case Study: Service Website for an Agency

Project: A multilingual site for a translation agency (3 languages)
ACF Pro version: precise fields, structural control, better SEO
Gutenberg version: faster loading, easier editing, but less semantic control

Conclusion: ACF Pro won due to the need for precise translation and structured data.

🧵 Summary

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. But if you value:

• HTML structure control
• Precise SEO
• Multilingual flexibility

Then ACF Pro still has the edge. If you prefer:

• Fast visual editor
• Better Core Web Vitals
• Client-friendly editing

Then Gutenberg may be the right choice.