Beaver Builder vs Divi vs Bricks: Google Sheets Compared

WordPress still powers roughly 43.5% of the web (W3Techs, 2026), and a sizeable share of those sites are built with a page builder. Beaver Builder, Divi, and Bricks each ship a native form module, which means agencies and freelancers are increasingly choosing forms based on builder lock-in rather than form features.

That choice has real consequences. The form module that comes with your builder dictates which hooks you can use, which fields you can capture, and which third-party tools you can plug in. Switching builders later usually means rebuilding every form from scratch, even if your data destination, often a Google Sheet, never changes.

This guide walks through all three builders fairly. Each has genuine strengths. The goal is to help you pick a stack that works today and still works the day you want to migrate or hand the site off to a client. For a deeper look at the underlying integration patterns, see our form integrations docs.

Beaver Builder is used on around 1 million WordPress sites according to public install data (Beaver Builder, 2026), and its Contact Form module is the default starting point for most of those sites. It supports name, email, phone, subject, and a message field, with optional reCAPTCHA and a configurable success message.

The module is intentionally simple. There is no built-in conditional logic, no multi-step support, and no payment integration. What it does have is the fl_module_contact_form_after_send action hook, which fires after every successful submission and exposes the full $_POST payload. That hook is the entire reason Beaver forms integrate so cleanly with external tools, including the Beaver Builder Google Sheets integration in SheetLink Forms.

Pricing is straightforward. The Standard licence runs $99 per year and covers unlimited sites for a single agency. The Agency licence at $399 per year adds white-label branding and the Themer add-on. Beaver does not offer a lifetime tier, which is the main complaint you will read in reviews.

Bricks is the newcomer, launched in 2021 and now powering more than 80,000 sites according to the official roadmap (Bricks Builder, 2026). The Form element is the most flexible of the three out of the box. It supports text, email, textarea, number, tel, url, file upload, select, checkbox, radio, datepicker, and hidden fields, plus reCAPTCHA v3 and Cloudflare Turnstile.

The hook story is also the cleanest. bricks/form/custom_action lets you register a named action right inside the form settings panel, then handle it in PHP without touching the rest of the page. There is no need to filter on form ID or guess at field keys. Field names are user-defined strings, not auto-generated IDs, so the data that lands in your handler is human-readable from day one.

Bricks pricing has three tiers: $79 per year for the Starter (one site), $249 lifetime for Unlimited, and $499 lifetime for the Ultimate bundle. Bricks support in SheetLink lives in the Integrations Bundle add-on rather than the core plugin, which is worth budgeting for if Bricks is your daily driver.

SheetLink Forms supports nine form plugins out of the box, including Beaver Builder and Divi in the core (free) plugin and Bricks Builder via the Integrations Bundle add-on. Around 38% of SheetLink installs run at least one builder-native form according to anonymous opt-in telemetry from the 1.8.x release line.

The connector pattern is the same regardless of builder. SheetLink listens on the builder's submission hook, normalises the field payload, and writes a row to a Google Sheet you connect via OAuth. Field mapping is drag-and-drop, so renaming a Bricks field or changing a Divi field ID does not break the integration as long as you remap once.

Bricks support living in the Integrations Bundle add-on is a deliberate choice. The bundle also covers WS Form, Forminator, Kali Forms, and a few others, and the licence economics work out cheaper than buying separate connectors for each. Beaver and Divi sites can stick with the free core plugin indefinitely. See lifetime pricing for the full tier breakdown.

Roughly 41% of integration support tickets across our 2025 logs traced back to field naming, not the integration itself. Each builder has its own quirks worth learning before you ship.

Beaver Builder uses fixed field names (name, email, phone, subject, message) for the default Contact Form module. Custom fields require a third-party module like PowerPack or Ultimate Addons. If you swap modules later, your map breaks.

Divi auto-generates field IDs like et_pb_contact_form_field_0 unless you override them. Always set CSS IDs manually before connecting SheetLink, and avoid spaces or capital letters. The auto-generated IDs also change if you reorder fields, which is the single most common Divi support ticket we see.

Bricks field names are user-defined strings. Stick to lowercase, underscores, and no spaces (for example, company_size, not Company Size). Bricks also lets you mark fields as Required for storage, which prevents partial rows landing in your sheet. Use that flag on every field you actually need.

Agencies running multi-client portfolios tend to standardise on one builder per client tier, according to a 2025 Cloudways agency survey of 1,200 freelancers (Cloudways, 2025). The pattern that emerged is consistent enough to use as a starting point.

• Local services and trades: Beaver Builder. Clients log in once a month, edit a phone number, and never touch design. Beaver's clean back end is a feature, not a limitation.
• Coaches, course creators, and lifestyle brands: Divi. Visual editing is the selling point, lifetime licence makes recurring revenue cleaner, and the Theme Builder covers most layout needs.
• SaaS, agencies, and high-traffic content sites: Bricks. Performance, clean output, and developer-friendly hooks matter more than visual polish for in-house teams.
• Mixed portfolios: many agencies run Beaver for retainer clients and Bricks for project work, which is exactly why SheetLink supports both with the same field mapper.

Whichever you pick, the migration path between builders is real but painful. Forms always have to be rebuilt, even if the destination sheet stays the same.