Astro vs Gatsby: which should you choose?
Both are open-source ways to build content sites, but they're at different points in their life. Astro is the modern, low-JS, actively developed choice; Gatsby is the mature React + GraphQL generator whose momentum has cooled. Here's the honest split — and why the framework you pick doesn't have to dictate how you build and ship it.
Pick by where your project is today:
- New modern content site → Astro — zero-JS islands, faster builds, active development.
- Existing React + plugin + GraphQL stack → Gatsby — keep what already works.
- Leaving a slow, complex build → most teams migrate Gatsby → Astro (or Next.js).
- Build & deploy either, on any host → Buddy — own the build, choose the host.
The honest split
Where each one wins
Choose Astro when…
- You want a modern, low-JS, high-performance content site with zero client JavaScript by default.
- You prefer content collections and content-layer loaders over a required GraphQL data layer.
- You want faster, simpler builds and a framework under active development.
- You like mixing UI frameworks — React, Vue, Svelte — or plain
.astrocomponents.
Choose Gatsby when…
- You're already invested in Gatsby's React + plugin + GraphQL ecosystem.
- You have an existing Gatsby site and a migration isn't worth the effort right now.
- You need a specific Gatsby source plugin that would be costly to replace elsewhere.
- The GraphQL data layer that unifies your data sources is central to how the site is built.
Side by side
Astro vs Gatsby, compared
Both are free and open-source (MIT). The difference is direction: Astro is HTML-first, low-JS and actively developed; Gatsby is React + GraphQL and now largely in maintenance.
| Dimension | Astro | Gatsby |
|---|---|---|
| UI / language | Any (React/Vue/Svelte/.astro) | React / JS·TS |
| Primary use case | Modern content sites | React content sites w/ data layer |
| Rendering | SSG · SSR · Server Islands | SSG · DSG |
| Client JS by default | Zero (islands) | Ships React runtime |
| Data layer | Content collections / loaders (optional) | GraphQL (central) |
| Build speed | Faster / simpler | Slower / complex |
| Project momentum | Active (Cloudflare-backed) | Maintenance (post-Netlify) |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Best for | Fast modern content sites | Existing React/GraphQL sites |
Compiled July 2026 from each project's official docs.
Where Buddy fits
Own the build, choose the host
Buddy is one way to do this — GitHub Actions, GitLab CI and Bitbucket Pipelines can build these frameworks too. The point is that your build and host stay a choice you own, independent of the framework.
The Astro-vs-Gatsby decision is about the framework. How you build and where you deploy is a separate choice — and one you shouldn't have to redo if you migrate. Buddy has a native Gatsby CLI build action and a Node.js step for Astro, and ships either output anywhere.
Native Gatsby action
A dedicated Gatsby CLI build action runs gatsby build out of the box — plus a Node.js step for Astro. Same pipeline model, no lock-in to one framework.
Deploy anywhere
Ship to Cloudflare, Netlify, Vercel, your own CDN/VPS, or Buddy's Dev Cloud (MicroVM + static hosting).
Preview env per PR
Every branch or pull request gets a real URL so changes get reviewed on a live deploy before merge.
Free to start
Free tier at €0/mo, then Pro €29/mo and Hyper €99/mo as concurrency and team size grow.
Common questions
Astro vs Gatsby — common questions
Should I use Astro or Gatsby?
For a new content-driven site in 2026, Astro is usually the better default: it ships zero JavaScript by default, builds faster and simpler, and is actively developed. Choose Gatsby when you are already invested in its React plus plugin plus GraphQL ecosystem, have an existing Gatsby site, or need a specific Gatsby source plugin that would be costly to replace. Both are free and open-source (MIT).
Is Gatsby still maintained in 2026?
Yes — Gatsby still works and its plugin and GraphQL data-layer ecosystem is real and usable. That said, its momentum cooled significantly after the Netlify acquisition, and it is now largely in maintenance rather than rapid development. It remains a reasonable choice for existing sites, but most new content-site projects are choosing Astro or Next.js instead.
Why do teams migrate from Gatsby to Astro?
The common reasons are less client JavaScript (Astro's islands ship almost none, while Gatsby ships the React runtime), simpler and faster builds, no required GraphQL data layer, better default performance and Core Web Vitals, and more active development. Most migrations today flow from Gatsby toward Astro or Next.js rather than the other way.
How hard is it to migrate from Gatsby to Astro?
React components port to Astro as islands with minor changes, and Markdown/MDX content is portable. The main work is replacing Gatsby's GraphQL data layer with Astro's content collections or content-layer loaders and redoing the routing conventions. For a mostly-content site the migration is manageable; sites that lean heavily on GraphQL source plugins take more effort.