Next.js is a React application framework that can render a site. Astro is a site framework that can run components. For a marketing site with no application behind it, that difference decides the choice.

For a marketing or company website with no application logic, Astro is usually the better fit: it renders pages to HTML and ships no JavaScript unless a component needs it. Next.js is the better fit when the site is part of a product, shares components with an application, or needs server-rendered personalised pages. The question is not which framework is more capable but what the site is.

The rendering models are different by default

Astro renders components to HTML at build time and sends no client-side JavaScript unless you explicitly mark a component as interactive. Next.js is built around React running in the browser, and while it can produce static pages, the framework and its ecosystem assume a JavaScript runtime is present. On a page whose job is to be read, that assumption costs weight for no benefit.

What that means in practice

A marketing site built in Astro typically ships a few kilobytes of JavaScript, often none at all, which shows up in load time on mid-range phones and in Core Web Vitals field data. The same site in Next.js ships the framework runtime before any of your own code. Both can be fast; one starts from zero and the other starts from a baseline.

  • Astro: HTML by default, JavaScript by exception.
  • Next.js: JavaScript by default, static by configuration.
  • The gap matters most on content pages and least on app screens.

Content handling

Astro treats content as a first-class input: Markdown and MDX files with typed schemas, or any headless CMS through its content layer. Next.js does the same through libraries and conventions rather than as a core idea. For a site whose content is articles, service pages and a glossary, Astro’s model needs less scaffolding.

When Next.js is clearly right

When the marketing site and the product share a component library and a design system, keeping both in React avoids maintaining two of everything. When pages must be rendered per request for logged-in users, or personalised by region or account. When the team is React-native and will be extending the site continuously; the framework everyone already knows is worth real money in delivery speed.

When Astro is clearly right

When the site is content: pages, articles, case studies, documentation. When performance on mobile is a business requirement rather than a preference. When you want the output to be plain files that any host can serve, with no server to maintain and no platform subscription. When several small islands of interactivity are needed and the rest of the page has no reason to run JavaScript.

The parts people get wrong

Astro is not limited to static sites; it renders on a server when you ask it to. Next.js is not inherently slow; it is heavier by default, which is a different claim. And neither choice will matter to search rankings on its own: both produce crawlable HTML, and the ranking differences people attribute to frameworks come from content, structure and speed, where the frameworks merely make one of those three easier or harder.

How this applies to a company website

Most company websites are content with a contact form. They do not share components with a product, they have no logged-in state, and they will be edited by marketing rather than engineering. That describes an Astro project, with a headless CMS if editors need one. The exception is the software company whose engineering team owns the marketing site too, where matching the product stack usually wins on maintenance grounds alone.

Practical decision checklist

  • Decide whether the site shares components with a product.
  • Check whether any page must be rendered per request.
  • Name who maintains the site: marketing, engineering or a supplier.
  • Decide whether editors need a CMS, and which one.
  • Measure the current site on a mid-range phone before choosing.
  • Price hosting and maintenance, not just build time.

Frequently asked questions

Can Astro use React components?

Yes, and Vue, Svelte and others, in the same project. They render to HTML by default and only become interactive where you ask them to, which is the point of the model.

Is a static site enough for a business website?

For most, yes. Forms are handled by an endpoint or a serverless function, search by a client-side index or a hosted service, and content by a CMS at build time. What static cannot do is per-request personalisation.

Which is better for SEO?

Both output crawlable HTML, so neither has an inherent advantage. Astro makes it harder to accidentally ship a page that depends on JavaScript to show its content, which is the most common framework-related SEO mistake.

What does this site use?

Astro, built statically and served from a CDN, with no client-side JavaScript on content pages. That is a deliberate example rather than a universal recommendation.