Astro vs Next.js: the shape of your site decides.
Astro vs Next.js without a scorecard: Astro is built for content-driven websites, Next.js for React applications. We build with both and earn from the build, never from the framework.
Both are in our stack
We build websites with Astro and applications with React, alongside Webflow, Flutter and SwiftUI.
Described, not scored
We show what the two frameworks do differently. Your site structure makes the decision.
Measurement over benchmarks
Somebody else's benchmark says little about your site. We measure your Core Web Vitals ourselves.
Our own products, live in the browser.
Screenshots from Mini Marvin, our own progressive web app running in the browser.
Swipe baby names instead of scrolling
Mini Marvin is our progressive web app for finding baby names: swipe through 10,000+ first names right in the browser, no app store needed.
Astro vs Next.js in four points.
The short answer
- A content-driven website gets built with Astro.
- An application with login, session state and a fully interactive surface gets built with Next.js.
What speaks for Astro
- Static HTML as the default delivery, a typed content model through content collections with Zod, and a free choice of UI library.
What speaks for Next.js
- The larger React ecosystem and a wider hiring pool.
- Plus everything that involves state, sessions and personalisation.
It is no either-or
- Marketing site in Astro, product in Next.js, split by subdomain or path.
- For the rebuild: Next.js to Astro.
Which kind of site do you have?
Send us your page list or the URL. You get a reasoned read on whether Astro, Next.js or a split fits.
When each framework is the right choice.
If you recognise yourself in both columns, a clean split is the better route.
Choose Astro when …
- Most of your pages are content: home, services, references, blog, job ads, landing pages.
- Load time and Core Web Vitals are a business goal, because you buy visibility through search and ads.
- You want to ship most of the site as static HTML and make only single components interactive.
- Your team is uncommitted on React and hosting should stay freely choosable.
Choose Next.js when …
- There are logins, roles and permissions, and much of the surface belongs to signed-in users.
- State has to survive page changes: multi-step forms, carts, dashboards, editors.
- You already have a React team and a component library. Existing skill is project speed.
- Hiring matters: React developers are more common on the market than Astro specialists.
How we arrive at a recommendation.
The test takes half an hour and needs your page list.
Walk the page list
Mark every area that stops working without JavaScript in the browser.
Count the interactive areas
Few, clearly bounded areas point to Astro. Interactive almost everywhere points to Next.js.
Check state and sessions
When state has to live across page changes, Next.js is the leaner route.
Consider a split
Website in Astro, application in Next.js, separated by subdomain or path.
Measure before and after
Core Web Vitals in the lab and with your own field data from the project.
Frequently asked questions about Astro vs Next.js.
Is Astro faster than Next.js?
On a content-driven site, usually yes, and the reason is a default: Astro removes all client-side JavaScript from components unless asked, while Next.js ships React as the basis of the page. On an interactive application that advantage disappears. Only measuring your site settles it.
Can we keep using our React components in Astro?
Yes. Astro is UI-framework agnostic with an official React integration, so existing components keep running as islands. Inside one .astro file, components from several frameworks can sit side by side. Purely presentational components we move into .astro components.
Can Astro do server rendering and dynamic routes?
Yes. Prerendering is the default. Individual routes render on demand via export const prerender = false, and output: server flips the default the other way. On-demand rendering needs an adapter; official ones exist for Node, Vercel and Cloudflare.
Astro or Next.js for SEO: is there a difference?
For indexability, hardly any: both ship server-rendered HTML. The difference shows up in Core Web Vitals, where the amount of JavaScript you ship lands. Larger than the framework gap, in most cases, is the gap in structure, internal linking and content.
Is a move from Next.js to Astro worth it, and what does it cost?
Only with a trigger, such as a marketing site living in the product repository where every text change needs a product deploy. The range comes from page types, interactive areas, content, CMS and languages. Process: Next.js to Astro, cost: Astro development cost.
Can we maintain the website by chat later on?
Yes, within a defined scope. Because Astro content lives in a typed, Zod-validated model, an agent can write it in a structured way, and every change becomes a commit with a deploy. We run a WhatsApp AI agent ourselves, see edit your website by chat.
More from the Astro cluster.
Fundamentals, further comparisons and operation afterwards:
A framework decision with nothing to sell.
Describe your project in three sentences. You get a reasoned recommendation for Astro, Next.js or a clean split between them.
Astro or Next.js? Just ask.
Tell us briefly what the site has to do. We come back with a read on which framework is the leaner route.
We usually reply within 24 hours.
Remote and on site in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. International projects on request.
Keep reading.
Next.js to Astro migration
Process, checks and the cost logic behind rebuilding an existing Next.js site.
Learn moreCustom software development
When there is a genuine application behind the login and it should stay one.
Learn moreWebflow agency
When marketing has to publish without a deploy, Webflow is often the better answer.
Learn moreIT project management
When the rebuild is part of a larger programme.
Learn more