Both Next.js and Astro can build static sites, but they approach the problem from fundamentally different directions. Next.js is a React framework that can generate static pages. Astro is a static-first framework that can use React (or Vue, Svelte, or any other UI library) where needed. This architectural difference has significant implications for performance, complexity, and developer experience.
The Zero-JavaScript Difference
Astro's defining feature is its island architecture. By default, Astro ships zero JavaScript to the browser. Every component renders to static HTML at build time. Interactive components (islands) only load their JavaScript when needed — on page load, when visible, when idle, or on user interaction. This means a 20-page marketing site built with Astro might ship zero kilobytes of JavaScript, while the same site in Next.js ships the React runtime (approximately 40-80KB gzipped) plus hydration code on every page.
For content-focused sites — blogs, documentation, marketing pages, portfolios — this difference is dramatic. Astro pages consistently achieve 100/100 Lighthouse performance scores without any optimisation effort. Next.js can achieve similar scores, but it requires more careful management of client-side JavaScript.
Content Handling
Astro has built-in content collections that provide type-safe frontmatter validation, automatic slug generation, and efficient querying of Markdown and MDX files. The content layer supports local files, headless CMS data, and custom data sources with minimal configuration. For content-heavy sites, this is remarkably productive.
Next.js handles content through its data fetching functions (getStaticProps, generateStaticParams). You can source content from anywhere, but you need to write more integration code. MDX support exists through plugins, but it is not as tightly integrated as Astro's content collections. For CMS-driven content, both frameworks integrate well with headless CMS platforms.
When to Choose Astro
- Content-first sites: Marketing websites, blogs, documentation, portfolios — anything where the majority of pages are static content with minimal interactivity.
- Maximum performance: When page speed is a primary concern and you want the fastest possible load times without extensive optimisation effort.
- Framework flexibility: When your team works with multiple UI frameworks or you want to use the best tool for each component without committing to a single library.
- Simple deployment: Static Astro sites deploy to any hosting platform — Cloudflare Pages, Netlify, Vercel, or even a basic web server.
When to Choose Next.js
- Application-like experiences: When your site requires significant client-side interactivity — dashboards, user accounts, real-time features, complex forms.
- SSR requirements: When you need server-side rendering for dynamic, personalised, or user-specific content that cannot be pre-built at compile time.
- Full-stack features: When you need API routes, middleware, authentication, and other server-side capabilities alongside your static pages.
- React ecosystem: When your team is deeply invested in the React ecosystem and wants seamless access to its component libraries and tooling.
Our Approach
At Born Digital, we use both frameworks regularly. This website is built with Astro because it is a content-focused marketing site where performance matters and client-side JavaScript is unnecessary. For client projects that require user authentication, dynamic data, or complex interactivity, we reach for Next.js. The right choice depends entirely on your project's requirements, not framework popularity.