Astro vs Next.js: Choosing the Right Framework for Your Project

Frameworks 2026-02-27 · 4 min read astro nextjs react static-site-generation web-development frameworks

Astro vs Next.js: Choosing the Right Framework for Your Project

Astro and Next.js are both excellent tools for building modern websites — but they make fundamentally different trade-offs. Choosing the wrong one adds unnecessary complexity or leaves performance on the table.

The Core Difference

Astro ships zero JavaScript to the browser by default. It's designed around the idea that most content sites don't need client-side JavaScript — and when they do, you can selectively "hydrate" only the components that need interactivity.

Next.js is a React meta-framework that ships JavaScript by default. It's built around the assumption that you're building a React application, with full support for client-side interactivity, data fetching, and complex application state.

This foundational difference drives most of the practical differences between them.

Performance

Astro wins on raw performance for content-heavy sites.

Because Astro ships no JavaScript by default, pages load as static HTML with optional, targeted JavaScript. A typical Astro blog post is a few kilobytes of HTML and CSS. The same page in Next.js includes the React runtime, page component bundle, and hydration code — typically 50–100KB+ of JavaScript even for a static page.

Google's Core Web Vitals (which affect search rankings) reward small JavaScript payloads. For SEO-critical content sites, Astro's approach is a significant advantage.

Metric	Astro	Next.js
Default JS payload	~0KB	70-130KB+
TTFB (server rendering)	Comparable	Comparable
LCP (static content)	Excellent	Good
CLS	Excellent	Depends on hydration

Next.js has improved significantly with Server Components in Next.js 13+, which reduce client-side JavaScript for components that don't need interactivity. But the architecture still defaults to more JavaScript than Astro.

Developer Experience

Astro uses its own .astro component syntax, which feels like enhanced HTML. You can use components from any framework — React, Svelte, Vue, Solid — within Astro files. This "bring your own components" model is genuinely flexible.

---
// Server-side JavaScript runs here
import { BlogPost } from './BlogPost.jsx'; // React component
const posts = await fetch('/api/posts').then(r => r.json());
---

<html>
  <body>
    {posts.map(post => (
      <BlogPost post={post} client:visible />
    ))}
  </body>
</html>

Next.js is pure React, which means the entire React ecosystem is available — hooks, context, the vast library of React component libraries, and anything that runs in a React app. If you know React, Next.js is immediately familiar.

The learning curve for Astro is low for those familiar with HTML, but the new concepts (islands, hydration directives, .astro syntax) require some adjustment. Next.js has its own learning curve in the App Router and Server Components, which represent a significant paradigm shift from older Next.js versions.

Build Performance

Astro uses Vite as its bundler and is notably fast to build. Even large sites with thousands of pages build in seconds to low minutes.

Next.js has struggled with build times at scale. The next build command can be slow for large applications, though improvements in recent versions (Turbopack integration) are closing the gap. Incremental builds via ISR (Incremental Static Regeneration) help for large content sites.

Use Cases

Choose Astro for:

Content sites and blogs — The primary use case. Documentation sites, marketing pages, portfolios, news sites.
SEO-critical sites — Where Core Web Vitals and minimal JavaScript matter.
Multi-framework teams — Where you want to use existing React, Svelte, or Vue components.
Sites with mostly static content — Where interactivity is limited to a few components.

Choose Next.js for:

Web applications — E-commerce, SaaS dashboards, apps with complex client-side state.
React-heavy projects — Where the team is deeply invested in React and its ecosystem.
Complex data requirements — Where you need fine-grained control over client/server data fetching boundaries.
Authentication-heavy apps — Next.js has excellent middleware support for auth flows.
Real-time features — If you're building chat, live updates, or collaborative features.

Deployment

Both deploy easily to Vercel, Netlify, Cloudflare Pages, and similar platforms.

Astro's static output mode generates pure HTML/CSS that deploys to any static host. Its server rendering mode requires an edge or Node.js runtime.

Next.js is optimized for Vercel (same company), and some features (like ISR) work best on Vercel. It runs on any Node.js host but edge deployments require some adaptation.

Ecosystem and Community

Next.js has a larger, more established ecosystem. The component library ecosystem assumes React. More developers know it.

Astro's ecosystem is growing rapidly and its component integration story (use any framework's components) mitigates library ecosystem concerns. The community is active and the framework is evolving quickly.

The Migration Question

If you have an existing React or Next.js application, migrating to Astro for the whole thing is probably not worth it. You can, however, use Astro for new content-focused pages while keeping Next.js for the application parts.

The reverse is rarely necessary — Astro can grow to handle most use cases.

When It's Not Clear-Cut

Some projects genuinely fit either framework:

An e-commerce site with mostly catalog pages (Astro) but a complex checkout flow (Next.js)
A SaaS product with a marketing site (Astro) and an app dashboard (Next.js)

In these cases, it's worth considering whether having two frameworks adds complexity that outweighs the benefits, or whether a monorepo with Astro for marketing and Next.js for the app is the right answer.

Bottom Line

Start with Astro if: your project is primarily content (blog, docs, marketing site), SEO matters, or you want maximum performance with minimal complexity.

Start with Next.js if: you're building a React application, you need complex interactivity, or your team already lives in the React ecosystem.

The worst outcome is choosing Next.js for a blog because "everyone uses it" and shipping 100KB of JavaScript to readers of static articles. The second worst is choosing Astro for a complex app because it's trendy, then fighting its model for basic features.

Match the tool to the problem.

Want more developer tooling insights? Subscribe to DevTools Guide — a weekly newsletter for TypeScript and JavaScript developers.