Do Modern Frameworks Make All Websites Look the Same? The Truth About Web Design

I’ve been noticing something unsettling lately about modern web development. Every time I browse through a showcase of contemporary websites, I’m struck by an eerie sense of déjà vu. Clean white backgrounds, the same rounded corners, identical button styles, and that oh-so-familiar grid layout that seems to have colonised the entire internet.

It’s not just me either. Scroll through Twitter (sorry, X) and you’ll find developers lamenting the rise of “framework fatigue” or joking about how every startup’s landing page looks like it was assembled from the same modern development toolkit. We’ve somehow arrived at a point where throwing together interfaces with pre-built components from various libraries—has become the norm rather than the exception.

But here’s the thing: I’m not convinced this is actually a problem. Modern tools have given us speed and consistency, which are genuinely valuable. The question isn’t whether we should abandon these benefits—it’s how we can use them while still creating distinctive experiences.

How the Modern Development Ecosystem Changed Everything

Let’s be honest about how I got here. The shift didn’t happen because of any single tool—it’s the combination of utility-first CSS, component libraries, design systems, and rapid prototyping tools that has fundamentally changed how we build websites.

Tailwind CSS popularised utility-first styling, making it simple to apply consistent spacing, colours, and typography. Component libraries like shadcn/ui, Chakra UI, and Ant Design provided pre-built, accessible components. Design tools like Figma standardised design patterns through shared component libraries. Framework ecosystems like Next.js, Nuxt, and SvelteKit made it trivial to scaffold new projects with these tools already integrated.

The result? A development workflow that looks something like this:

// Modern component development
import { Button } from "@/components/ui/button";
import { Card } from "@chakra-ui/react";
import { motion } from "framer-motion";

function ModernComponent() {
  return (
    <Card className="p-6 bg-white rounded-lg shadow-sm">
      <motion.div whileHover={{ scale: 1.02 }}>
        <Button className="bg-blue-500 hover:bg-blue-600">Click me</Button>
      </motion.div>
    </Card>
  );
}

This isn’t inherently bad—it’s incredibly efficient. But when thousands of developers are using similar combinations of tools, patterns, and components, convergence becomes inevitable.

Why Modern Websites Look Similar

Walk through any gallery of modern website designs and you’ll see what I mean. The same card layouts, the same navigation patterns, the same hero sections with a punchy headline and a gradient button. It’s like everyone received the same design brief and decided to interpret it as literally as possible.

This similarity isn’t limited to visual elements either. The underlying patterns have become standardised: hero section, social proof, features grid, testimonials, pricing table, call-to-action. It’s like everyone’s following the same modern web design playbook.

You can see this everywhere—from startup landing pages to enterprise software sites. The same rounded corners, the same button styles, the same three-column layouts, and the same basic colour palettes.

Why This Happens (And Why It’s Not All Bad)

The reasons behind this similarity aren’t mysterious. As developers, I’m pragmatic. When something works, I use it. When something works really well, I use it everywhere.

Development Speed Wins: In a world where MVPs need to ship yesterday and pivots happen weekly, the appeal of pre-built UI components is irresistible. Why spend three days designing and coding a custom form when shadcn/ui gives you one that’s accessible, tested, and looks professional in three minutes?

Risk Aversion: Custom designs are risky. They might not work across browsers. They might have accessibility issues. They might confuse users who expect forms to look and behave in familiar ways. Standard UI components eliminate these concerns.

The Figma Effect: Design tools themselves have contributed to this convergence. When every design system starter kit includes the same basic components, and every designer is working from similar inspirations, is it any wonder the outputs look similar?

But there’s something deeper at play here—something I call “design anxiety.” Many developers (myself included) aren’t trained designers. Given a blank canvas, I freeze. Component libraries and CSS frameworks provide guardrails that prevent me from making terrible design decisions.

Why Similar Websites Actually Help Users

Before I dismiss this trend entirely, let’s consider whether similar designs might actually be serving users better than I initially thought.

Jakob Nielsen’s usability heuristics have stood the test of time for a reason. Consistency matters. When users land on a website, they bring expectations based on every other website they’ve ever used. Violate those expectations, and you’ve created friction.

Consider the humble navigation menu. I’ve collectively agreed that navigation belongs at the top of pages, that logos should link to the homepage, and that hamburger menus work on mobile. These aren’t arbitrary decisions—they’re learned behaviours that reduce cognitive load.

The same principle applies to more complex components. Users have learned to expect certain behaviours from forms, buttons, and interactive elements. When every form follows the same patterns, users can focus on completing their tasks rather than figuring out how your unique snowflake interface works.

There’s also an web accessibility angle that often gets overlooked. Standard components from libraries like shadcn/ui typically come with proper ARIA labels, keyboard navigation, and screen reader support baked in. When developers roll their own components, these considerations often fall by the wayside.

The Problem Isn’t Tailwind CSS or Shadcn/UI

Here’s where I think the conversation goes off the rails: I’m blaming the tools for decisions that are fundamentally human.

Tailwind CSS doesn’t force you to use bg-white and text-gray-900. It provides those utilities, but it also provides tools for creating completely custom colour palettes. The issue isn’t that Tailwind lacks customisation options—it’s that most developers never explore them.

Similarly, shadcn/ui components are designed to be starting points, not endpoints. Every component can be themed, modified, and extended. The problem isn’t the components themselves, it’s that developers often treat them as final solutions rather than foundations to build upon.

I’ve seen teams spend weeks customising shadcn/ui components to match their brand, creating interfaces that feel both familiar and distinctive. The difference isn’t the tools they’re using—it’s the intentionality they bring to customisation.

How to Create Unique Websites with Modern Frameworks

So how do I create unique websites without abandoning the productivity gains of modern CSS frameworks? I’ve found a few strategies that work:

Customise Strategically: Don’t try to make everything unique. Pick three to five elements that matter most to your brand identity and invest your customisation energy there. Maybe it’s your colour palette, your typography, or your button design. Make those distinctively yours and let everything else follow established patterns.

Embrace Design Constraints: Paradoxically, working within constraints often leads to more creative solutions than complete freedom. Use Tailwind’s design tokens as a foundation, but create your own custom utilities for brand-specific elements.

Steal Like an Artist: Look beyond your immediate industry for inspiration. If you’re building a fintech app, study food blogs. If you’re designing an e-commerce site, examine portfolio websites. Cross-pollination prevents you from falling into the same patterns as your direct competitors.

Progressive Differentiation: Start with standard components to establish a solid foundation, then gradually introduce custom elements as your product and brand mature. This approach balances speed with distinctiveness.

Finding the Sweet Spot

This debate often gets framed as a binary choice: creativity versus efficiency, uniqueness versus usability. But the most successful modern websites I’ve encountered reject this false choice.

They use CSS frameworks like Tailwind for speed and consistency, but they invest in custom design touches that reflect their brand. They leverage component libraries for complex interactions but ensure those components feel native to their design system.

The key insight is that not everything needs to be unique. Users benefit when checkout flows, navigation menus, and form controls behave predictably. The art lies in identifying the moments where distinctiveness adds genuine value—where your brand’s personality can shine without compromising usability.

The Verdict: Modern Frameworks and Website Similarity

After wrestling with this question for months, I’ve reached a conclusion that might surprise you: the current wave of similar-looking websites isn’t the crisis many make it out to be. It’s growing pains.

We’re witnessing a shift from an era where every website was a bespoke creation (often poorly executed) to one where sophisticated tools democratise good design. Yes, this has led to visual convergence. Yes, many Tailwind CSS websites look similar. But it’s also led to a more accessible, usable, and inclusive web.

The websites I admire most aren’t those that reject modern CSS frameworks entirely. They’re the ones that use these tools as a starting point, then add their own flavour on top.

At the end of the day, if users can navigate your site easily and accomplish their goals, does it really matter if your buttons look similar to everyone else’s? I’d rather have a fast, accessible website that “looks like everyone else’s” than a unique complicated website that confuses users and takes forever to load.

What’s your experience with Tailwind CSS and shadcn/ui? Have you found ways to maintain design uniqueness while leveraging modern frameworks? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the homogenisation debate.