For a content-led marketing site, Astro is usually the simpler fit: it ships no client-side JavaScript by default and adds interactivity only where you ask for it. Next.js is stronger when the site is really an application, with logged-in areas, heavy data and shared React state. Both can produce fast marketing pages, so the deciding factors are complexity, team skills and what the site must do next.
How each one renders
Astro renders UI components to HTML and CSS and, per its islands documentation, strips out client-side JavaScript automatically. A client:* directive such as client:visible turns a component into an interactive island that loads when needed. Its on-demand rendering guide says pages prerender at build time by default, and an adapter lets selected pages render per request.
Next.js App Router pages and layouts are Server Components by default. You add the "use client" directive for components needing state, event handlers or browser APIs. The documentation notes that once a file is marked as a client boundary, its imports and the components it renders are included in the client bundle, so it advises keeping those boundaries small.
Both aim to limit browser JavaScript. Astro starts at none and adds; Next.js starts with server rendering inside a React model and still sends JavaScript for client components.
Side by side
| Question | Astro | Next.js |
|---|---|---|
| Default output | Static pages at build time | Server Components, rendered on the server or at build |
| Interactivity | Opt-in islands | Client Components in React |
| Fully static hosting | The default | Possible with output: 'export', with limits |
| Dynamic features | Adapters for on-demand pages | Built in, many need a server-capable host |
| Best fit | Content and brochure sites, blogs | Apps, dashboards, data-heavy products |
Static export is not the same as full Next.js
Next.js can be exported as static files that any web host can serve. The static export guide also lists what is unsupported in that mode, including Server Actions, Incremental Static Regeneration, cookies, redirects and headers in config, and image optimisation with the default loader. If your marketing site needs those, you need a server or a platform that runs them. Plan for that before you commit.
A decision framework
- Is the site mostly pages that change when the team edits them? Lean Astro.
- Will visitors log in, have accounts or see personalised data? Lean Next.js, or pair a static marketing site with a separate app.
- Does your team already build in React? A team deep in React may move faster in Next.js. Check Astro’s documentation for current support if you want to reuse React components.
- Do you need strict performance budgets? Either can meet them, but Astro’s default is easier to keep lean. Measure with field data, as explained in the Core Web Vitals guide.
- Who will maintain it in three years? Fewer dependencies usually means less upkeep. Consider whether a CMS-based option is better, as in Astro vs WordPress.
Practical advice
Do not pick on benchmarks. Build the same landing page in both, test it on a mid-range phone, and compare build effort and page weight. Also check where each will be hosted: Astro deployment options covers the hosting side. Conversion depends more on message and layout than on framework, a point developed in business website conversion.
Limits of this comparison
Frameworks evolve quickly. This article reflects the official documentation at the time of writing (November 2026), and it does not cover every rendering mode or hosting product.
Where Radiance Impact fits
Radiance Impact’s Technology division designs and builds business websites and landing pages, and can help a team choose a stack that suits how the site will be edited and maintained. See /technology or contact the team.
Sources
- Islands architecture, Astro Docs
- On-demand rendering, Astro Docs
- Server and Client Components, Next.js Docs
- How to create a static export of your Next.js application, Next.js Docs
