Next.js vs. Astro for B2B Websites: A Decision Framework

We build on both Next.js and Astro. The choice depends on what the site needs to do — static content and speed, or dynamic features and interactivity. Here’s our decision framework and when we choose each.

The Short Answer

• Astro — Static sites, content-heavy, performance-critical. Brochure, blog, docs. Zero JS by default.
• Next.js — Dynamic sites, user-specific content, forms, dashboards. React ecosystem, server-side rendering.

Many B2B sites are mostly static. For those, Astro often wins on speed and simplicity. When you need dynamic features, Next.js (or a hybrid) makes sense.

Astro: When to Use It

Best For

• Brochure and marketing sites — Homepage, services, about, contact. Content doesn’t change per user.
• Blogs and documentation — MDX, Markdown. Great authoring experience.
• Content-heavy B2B — Case studies, resources, industry pages. Mostly static.
• Performance-critical — Core Web Vitals matter. Astro ships HTML. Minimal or zero JavaScript by default.

How It Works

• Static by default — Builds HTML at build time. No server needed at runtime for most pages.
• Islands architecture — Add React, Vue, or Svelte components only where needed. Rest is static.
• Fast — No client-side framework overhead for static content. LCP and INP benefit.

Trade-offs

• Dynamic content — Requires workarounds (client-side fetch, server endpoints) for user-specific data.
• Ecosystem — Smaller than Next.js. Fewer plugins, fewer examples.
• Learning curve — Different from React-first frameworks. But simpler for static sites.

Next.js: When to Use It

Best For

• Dynamic content — User dashboards, personalized pages, real-time data.
• Forms and backend logic — API routes, server actions. Form handling, webhooks.
• React ecosystem — Component libraries, rich interactivity. If you need React, Next.js integrates it.
• App-like experiences — Multi-step flows, auth, protected routes.

How It Works

• Server-side rendering (SSR) — Renders on each request. Good for dynamic, personalized content.
• Static export — Can also export static. But default is server-rendered.
• API routes — Backend logic in the same codebase. Forms, integrations.

Trade-offs

• JavaScript — More JS shipped. Can affect performance if not optimized.
• Complexity — More moving parts. Server, client, hydration.
• Hosting — May need Node.js or serverless. Static Astro can run on any host.

Hybrid Approaches

Astro + React

• Astro for pages. React for interactive components (forms, calculators, filters).
• Best of both: static speed + interactivity where needed.
• We use this for many B2B sites: static content, React for contact forms or tools.

Next.js Static Export

• Next.js can export static HTML. Good for marketing sites that don’t need server logic.
• Less common than Astro for pure static. But possible if you’re already in the React ecosystem.

Decision Framework

Need	Choose
Mostly static content, blog, docs	Astro
Fast load, minimal JS	Astro
User-specific content, dashboards	Next.js
Complex forms, API logic	Next.js
React components, rich interactivity	Next.js (or Astro + React)
Migration from WordPress/other CMS	Either; depends on content model

Migration Considerations

• From WordPress — Both can consume headless WordPress. Astro for static export; Next.js for ISR or SSR.
• From another framework — Evaluate content volume and dynamic needs. Static-heavy → Astro. Dynamic-heavy → Next.js.

---

We choose the right tool for the job. Start a project and we’ll recommend the best fit for your site.