Astro vs Next.js: which should you choose?
Both are top-tier, but they optimise for different jobs. Astro is built for content-driven sites that should ship almost no JavaScript; Next.js is the React meta-framework for applications. Here's the honest split — and why the framework you pick doesn't have to dictate how you build and ship it.
Pick by what you're actually building:
- Content-driven site (blog, docs, marketing) → Astro — zero-JS islands, best Core Web Vitals.
- App at scale (dashboards, auth, heavy interactivity) → Next.js — React everywhere, RSC, huge ecosystem.
- Mostly content with a few interactive bits → Astro with React islands — you may not need 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…
- The site is content-first: blog, docs, marketing, a portfolio or a content-heavy storefront.
- You want zero client JavaScript by default and only hydrate the interactive islands you mark.
- You like mixing UI frameworks — React, Vue, Svelte, Solid — or plain
.astrocomponents. - Top Lighthouse / Core Web Vitals scores out of the box matter more than app-grade interactivity.
Choose Next.js when…
- You're building an application: dashboards, authenticated flows, real-time or highly interactive UI.
- You're all-in on React and want React Server Components, middleware and ISR as first-class features.
- You need the largest ecosystem, hiring pool and third-party integrations of any framework here.
- Server-rendered, data-driven routes at scale are the core of the product, not an add-on.
Side by side
Astro vs Next.js, compared
Both are free and open-source (MIT). The difference is philosophy: HTML-first with optional islands vs React-first application framework.
| Dimension | Astro | Next.js |
|---|---|---|
| UI / language | Any (React/Vue/Svelte/Solid/.astro) | React / JS·TS |
| Primary use case | Content-driven sites | Applications & dynamic sites |
| Rendering | SSG · SSR · Server Islands | SSR · SSG · ISR · RSC |
| Client JS by default | Zero (islands) | Ships React runtime |
| Core Web Vitals out of the box | Excellent | Good, tuning needed |
| Ecosystem & hiring pool | Growing | Largest here |
| Learning curve | Gentle | Steeper (RSC, caching) |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Best for | Blogs, docs, marketing | SaaS, dashboards, e-commerce apps |
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-Next.js 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 change your mind. Buddy builds either framework and ships it anywhere.
Builds both
A Node.js build step compiles either an Astro or a Next.js project — 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 Next.js — common questions
Should I use Astro or Next.js?
Use Astro for content-driven sites — blogs, docs, marketing — where you want zero JavaScript by default and top Core Web Vitals. Use Next.js when the site is really an application: dashboards, authenticated flows, heavy client interactivity, or anything that benefits from React Server Components and a large React ecosystem. Astro can host React islands, so if you only need a little interactivity you may not need Next.js at all.
Is Astro faster than Next.js?
For content pages, Astro usually ships less JavaScript because it renders to HTML and hydrates only marked islands, so pages are typically lighter and faster to interactive than a comparable Next.js app that ships the React runtime. Next.js can match it for mostly-static routes but tends to send more client JS as interactivity grows. On raw build times both are Node-based and comparable; neither approaches Go-based Hugo at very large page counts.
How hard is it to migrate from Astro to Next.js?
It is one of the more straightforward framework migrations because both use React components and file-based routing. Markdown/MDX content ports easily, and React components often move with minor changes. The work is re-expressing Astro's islands and content collections as React components and Next.js data fetching (RSC, route handlers), plus adjusting the routing conventions. A mostly-static site moves in days.
Can I use React with Astro instead of switching to Next.js?
Yes. Astro supports React components as hydrated islands via the @astrojs/react integration. If your main reason to consider Next.js is "we want React," Astro already gives you React where it matters while keeping the rest of the page as zero-JS HTML. Switch to Next.js when you need React across the whole app, not just in a few interactive spots.