Comparison / Frameworks
Astro and Next.js are both excellent, for different jobs. Here's how to choose between them for a marketing site, and why the answer is usually simpler than the debate suggests.
Not sure which fits? Ask usThe Astro versus Next.js debate is usually framed as a rivalry, but they're built for different jobs. Astro is a static-first framework optimised for content; Next.js is a React framework that spans static pages through full server-rendered applications. For a marketing site specifically, the choice is usually clearer than the online argument makes it sound.
The short version: if your site is content, pages, posts, landing pages, Astro will almost always be faster and simpler. If your site is really an application, authentication, dashboards, personalised or server-rendered dynamic data, Next.js earns its weight. Many projects want Astro for the marketing surface and Next.js only for the app.
At a glance
| Astro | Next.js | |
|---|---|---|
| Default JavaScript | Near-zero | Ships a React runtime |
| Rendering model | Static-first, islands | Static, server, or client |
| Best for | Content & marketing sites | Applications |
| Performance ceiling | Very high, by default | High, with discipline |
| Interactivity | Islands where needed | Full React app |
| Hosting cost | Minimal (static/CDN) | Higher (serverless/edge) |
| Complexity | Lower | Higher |
Our take
For a content-led B2B marketing site, we build on Astro by default. It ships almost no JavaScript, hits 95+ Lighthouse without heroics, costs almost nothing to host, and is simpler to keep fast over time. The islands model handles the occasional interactive component without turning the whole page into a single-page app.
We reach for Next.js when the project is genuinely application-shaped: gated content, authenticated dashboards, personalised or server-rendered dynamic data. Next.js handles those in a way a static framework can't. Built server-first with tight bundle budgets, it performs well, but for a plain marketing site it's usually more framework than the job needs.
FAQ
For a content-led marketing site, Astro is typically faster because it ships near-zero JavaScript by default, while even static Next.js pages include a React runtime. Next.js can be made fast with disciplined, server-first architecture and tight bundle budgets, but Astro reaches a higher performance ceiling with less effort for content sites. For applications, the comparison shifts toward Next.js's strengths.
Use Astro if your site is primarily content, pages, posts, landing pages, which describes most B2B marketing sites; it will be faster and simpler. Use Next.js if the site is really an application with authentication, dashboards, or server-rendered dynamic data. A common and effective pattern is Astro for the marketing surface and Next.js only for the application parts.
Not quite, and that's by design. Astro is optimised for content and static-first delivery, with islands for interactivity, so for heavy application work, complex authenticated flows, server-rendered dynamic data at scale, Next.js is the better tool. For marketing sites, Astro does everything needed and does it faster; the gap only appears when you're really building an app.
Start here
Tell us what you're building and we'll tell you honestly which option fits, even if it isn't us.
Honest advice · Even if it isn't us
Related