# Astro vs Next.js for landing pages: performance and SEO compared > Astro vs Next.js for landing pages: a comparison of performance, JavaScript, Core Web Vitals and SEO to decide which to use for your project. URL: https://codegea.com/en/astro-vs-nextjs-for-landing-pages-performance-and-seo-compared Node.js · 2026-06-26 · Derian Pinto A landing page has one job: load fast and convince. Every tenth of a second it takes to paint is someone closing the tab before reading your proposal, and every extra kilobyte of JavaScript you ship is a Core Web Vitals penalty that Google notices. That is why, when someone asks me whether to build their landing page in Astro or Next.js, the answer does not come from the trend of the moment but from understanding what each one does to the visitor’s browser. Both are excellent and both rank well if used wisely. But they start from different philosophies, and that difference shows exactly where a landing page plays its game: the weight that reaches the browser. > Astro is born to send as little JavaScript as possible. Next.js is born to build complete applications. For a landing page, that sentence already gives away almost the whole decision. ## What each one is **Astro** is a framework designed for content-oriented sites: blogs, documentation, landing pages, corporate sites. Its trademark is the "islands" architecture: by default it sends zero JavaScript to the browser and only hydrates the interactive components you explicitly mark. Everything else is served as pure static HTML. It is also agnostic: you can write components in React, Vue, Svelte or its own syntax, and mix them. **Next.js** is the React framework par excellence for building everything from landing pages to large applications. It brings server-side rendering (SSR), static generation (SSG), React Server Components, API routes, middleware and a huge ecosystem. It is a Swiss army knife: it does everything, and does it well, but it drags the React runtime along even when your page barely needs interactivity. The underlying difference: Astro assumes your page is content with some interactivity; Next.js assumes your page is an application that also displays content. For a landing page, that starting assumption changes everything. ## Performance: where a landing page is decided A landing page’s performance is measured mostly by how much JavaScript reaches the browser and how it scores on Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS), metrics Google uses as a ranking factor. Here Astro starts with a structural advantage: if there is no interactivity, there is no JavaScript to download, parse or run. | Aspect | Astro | Next.js | | --- | --- | --- | | JavaScript by default | Zero (optional islands) | React runtime always present | | Typical landing page weight | Very light | Higher because of the base bundle | | Time to Interactive | Excellent (little or no hydration) | Good, but with more JS to hydrate | | Out-of-the-box Core Web Vitals | Green with little effort | Green, but the bundle needs care | | Rendering | Static by default, optional SSR | Very mature SSG, SSR and ISR | To be fair: Next.js has improved enormously with React Server Components and the App Router, and a well-optimized landing page in Next.js can score wonderfully. But it requires discipline and constant [performance optimization](/en/supercharge-your-website-key-tips-for-web-performance-optimization) (watching the bundle, avoiding heavy client dependencies), while in Astro lightness is the starting point, not something you have to chase. ## SEO compared In technical SEO both play in the same division: both generate HTML on the server or at build time, so the content is fully crawlable by Google without depending on JavaScript running. The differences are nuances, but they count. | SEO factor | Astro | Next.js | | --- | --- | --- | | Crawlable HTML without JS | Yes, static by default | Yes, with SSG/SSR | | Speed as a ranking factor | Advantage thanks to lower weight | Depends on the bundle | | Meta tags and structured data | Full and simple control | Full control (Metadata API) | | Sitemap and RSS | Simple official integrations | Available, somewhat more manual | | Risk of hurting Vitals | Low | Medium if you neglect the client | Where Next.js shines in SEO is on large, dynamic sites that need ISR (regenerating pages on demand) or content that changes a lot. For a landing page, that extra muscle is rarely used, and the additional weight works against the Vitals. One point worth remembering: a landing page almost never lives alone. It usually feeds from a content manager so marketing can edit text without touching code. Both Astro and Next.js fit wonderfully with a [headless CMS such as WordPress or Strapi](/en/wordpress-vs-strapi-detailed-comparison-to-choose-the-right-platform) serving the data through an API, so choosing the front end does not tie your hands on the back end. If you go with WordPress, that setup is exactly the one in [headless WordPress with Next.js](/en/headless-wordpress-with-nextjs-architecture-advantages-and-how-to-start). ## Pros and cons | Astro: pros | Astro: cons | | --- | --- | | Zero JS by default: very fast landing pages | Less suited to highly interactive apps | | Core Web Vitals in green almost effortlessly | Younger ecosystem than React’s | | Agnostic: use React, Vue or Svelte | Fewer resources and templates than Next.js | | Gentle entry curve | SSR and dynamic cases less mature | | Next.js: pros | Next.js: cons | | --- | --- | | Does everything: from the landing page to the full app | More base JavaScript than Astro | | Gigantic React ecosystem | You must watch the bundle for the Vitals | | Very mature SSR, ISR and API routes | More complexity than a landing page needs | | Ideal if the landing page will grow into a product | Steeper curve | ## What to choose for your scenario | Your scenario | Recommendation | | --- | --- | | Campaign or product landing page, lots of content | Astro | | Corporate site or blog with simple forms | Astro | | Landing page that will evolve into an app or dashboard | Next.js | | Lots of interactivity (filters, user areas) | Next.js | | The team already masters React and reuses components | Next.js (or Astro with React islands) | | Maximum speed and SEO on a tight budget | Astro | ## The decision I would make For a pure landing page, whose goal is to load flying and convert, I choose Astro almost always. The reason is simple: on a landing page performance is not a detail, it is part of the product, and Astro gives me Core Web Vitals in green without fighting the bundle. I keep Next.js for when I know the landing page is the seed of something bigger (a dashboard, a user area, an app that is going to grow): there the React runtime stops being dead weight and becomes an investment. In my experience, the typical mistake is choosing Next.js "just in case" for a page that will never stop being a landing page, and ending up dragging complexity and JavaScript that the visitor pays for in load time. If in doubt, ask yourself a single question: will this remain a landing page, or will it become an application? The answer chooses for you. --- At **Codegea** I design and build fast landing pages made to convert, with Astro or Next.js depending on what your project calls for, connected to a CMS so you can edit without depending on anyone. If you want a landing page that loads flying and ranks, [tell me your idea and we will build it](/en/contact).