Astro vs Next.js: which is right for your marketing site?

Both are excellent modern frameworks. Astro is built for content-driven websites. Next.js is built for web applications. The right choice depends on which one your site really is.

Book a callCompare

The short answer.

Choose Astro if your site is mainly content and marketing pages. It ships almost no JavaScript by default, which makes fast pages the easy path, and it still lets you use React where you need interactivity.

Choose Next.js if your site is really an application, with logins, dashboards, or lots of personalised and dynamic data, or if it shares a codebase with your product.

Astro and Next.js, side by side.

We’re an official Framer Expert Partner and we build on Astro, Sanity, and Contentful too, so this is the version we give clients.

  • Built for

    Astro
    Content-driven websites
    Next.js
    Full-stack web applications

  • JavaScript sent to the browser

    Astro
    None by default; islands where needed
    Next.js
    React on every page

  • Rendering

    Astro
    Static first, with server rendering when needed
    Next.js
    Server components, static, and dynamic rendering

  • UI components

    Astro
    Astro, plus React, Vue, Svelte, and others
    Next.js
    React

  • Content

    Astro
    Typed content collections built in
    Next.js
    Bring your own content layer

  • Headless CMS support

    Astro
    Works with Sanity, Contentful, and most others
    Next.js
    Works with Sanity, Contentful, and most others

  • Hosting

    Astro
    Any static host or server platform
    Next.js
    Best on Vercel; self-hosting is possible

  • Learning curve

    Astro
    Gentle, close to HTML
    Next.js
    Steeper, with more framework concepts

Where they really differ.

Performance by default

Astro pages are fast unless you add JavaScript. Next.js pages can be fast too, but it takes more deliberate work.

Complexity

Astro keeps a marketing site simple. Next.js brings application architecture that most marketing sites never use.

Where interactivity lives

Astro adds interactive islands only where they’re needed. Next.js is interactive everywhere, which suits apps.

Release process

An Astro marketing site can live in its own repo and ship on its own schedule, rather than following the product’s release process.

Which one should you choose?

Choose Astro if

  • The site is mostly content and marketing pages
  • Page speed and Core Web Vitals matter
  • You want a simple, maintainable codebase
  • Marketing should publish through a CMS
  • You want to mix UI frameworks

Choose Next.js if

  • The site has logins or user dashboards
  • Pages depend on lots of dynamic, personalised data
  • It shares a codebase with your product
  • Your team is all-in on React
  • You are deploying on Vercel with app features

Where we can help.

More comparisons.

Astro vs Next.js: common questions.

Is Astro faster than Next.js?

For content sites, Astro is usually faster out of the box because it sends no JavaScript unless a component needs it. A well-optimised Next.js site can also be fast, but it takes more work.

Can Astro use React components?

Yes. Astro supports React, Vue, Svelte, and other UI frameworks, and loads them only where interactivity is needed.

Should a marketing site use Next.js?

Only if it needs application features or must share a codebase with your product. Otherwise Astro is usually simpler, faster, and cheaper to maintain.

Can we move our marketing site from Next.js to Astro?

Yes. React components can often be reused, content moves to a headless CMS or content collections, and URLs are preserved or redirected.

Which is better for SEO, Astro or Next.js?

Both can produce excellent SEO. Astro makes fast, lightweight pages the default, which helps Core Web Vitals without extra effort.