Astro vs Next.js for Marketing Sites: 2026 Comparison

You have one decision that will quietly shape your site for the next three years: the framework underneath it. Astro and Next.js are the two serious contenders for B2B marketing sites in 2026. Here is the honest comparison, including the parts each community tends to downplay.

What Each Framework Is Actually Built For

Astro was designed for content-first sites: marketing pages, documentation, blogs, and company sites where the primary job is delivering text and images fast. Its core design philosophy is “ship as little JavaScript as possible.” By default, an Astro page contains zero JavaScript unless you explicitly add it.

Next.js is a React framework designed for app-style experiences. Server components, client-side navigation, API routes, authentication: it handles these well because it was built for them. It also does static generation, but the framework brings the full weight of React to every page regardless of whether you use it.

Both tools are capable. They are optimised for different jobs. Comparing them without acknowledging that is how you end up with a marketing site built on the wrong foundation.

Performance in Real Conditions

The performance gap between Astro and Next.js on a typical B2B marketing site is measurable and consistent.

An Astro marketing site ships roughly 0 to 5KB of JavaScript per page for a simple content site. A comparable Next.js site ships at least 80 to 120KB from the React runtime alone, even on a static export. That baseline JavaScript cost affects INP (interaction responsiveness) and increases the time before the page is fully interactive.

For LCP (Largest Contentful Paint), both frameworks can perform well if images are optimised. The difference shows up in sites with interactive components: if your marketing site uses modals, tabs, or navigation dropdowns, Astro handles these with zero-JavaScript alternatives or minimal vanilla JS, while Next.js hydrates the full React tree.

On real devices over mobile networks, this translates to a 200 to 600ms advantage for Astro on Time to Interactive. For paid traffic landing pages, that margin is meaningful.

Build Complexity and Team Requirements

This is where the honest conversation gets harder.

Astro requires a developer comfortable with HTML, CSS, and a small amount of JavaScript. Content editors work with Markdown files or a headless CMS. Deployments are simple: push to GitHub, Cloudflare Pages or Netlify builds automatically. A competent developer can build and deploy a production marketing site in two to four weeks.

Next.js requires a React developer. If you are hiring contractors or building an internal team, React developers are more common and arguably easier to find. The ecosystem is larger. But the site will be more complex to maintain, more expensive to host at scale (Vercel pricing at high traffic is notably higher than Cloudflare Pages), and harder for non-developers to work with.

If your team includes React developers and you anticipate building app-like features alongside marketing pages, Next.js makes sense. If your marketing site is a marketing site, Astro is the leaner, faster choice.

Hosting and Running Costs

Astro sites deployed to Cloudflare Pages cost nothing for the vast majority of B2B marketing sites. Cloudflare Pages’ free tier includes unlimited sites, 500 builds per month, and no bandwidth limits. A site receiving 100,000 visits per month costs the same as one receiving 1,000.

Next.js on Vercel can remain free at low traffic volumes, but Vercel’s pricing model becomes unpredictable at scale. Bandwidth, build minutes, serverless function invocations, and edge function executions all trigger charges. A busy marketing site with several dynamic features can easily run £50 to £200 per month on Vercel’s paid plans.

For most UK B2B marketing sites, the total annual hosting cost difference between the two choices is £0 versus £600 to £2,400. Over three years, that is significant.

When Next.js Is the Right Choice Anyway

This is not an argument against Next.js. It is an argument for using the right tool.

Next.js is the better choice when:

• Your site includes a gated product area, user authentication, or a customer portal.
• You are building a hybrid: marketing site and web app in the same deployment.
• Your team is already React-native and adding Astro would require retraining.
• You need server-rendered personalisation (geo-based content, A/B testing at the edge via middleware).
• You are integrating tightly with a Next.js-specific ecosystem (Vercel Analytics, Vercel AI SDK, etc.).

For a pure marketing site, these cases rarely apply. But if they do, don’t pick Astro to save on hosting costs and end up fighting the framework.

A Decision Framework

Five questions that point clearly to one framework:

1. Does the site need authenticated user sessions? Yes: Next.js. No: consider Astro.
2. Will any pages render differently per user? Yes: Next.js. No: Astro.
3. Does your team have existing React expertise? Yes: Next.js is viable. No: Astro has a lower learning curve.
4. Is page speed critical to your business model (paid traffic, lead gen)? Yes: Astro’s performance advantage is worth it.
5. Are you building a marketing site with no app functionality? Yes: Astro is the more focused tool.

At Fernside Studio, we build on Astro for all marketing sites. It is the right tool for the job: fast by default, simple to maintain, and deployable to Cloudflare Pages for near-zero running costs. Our sites consistently score 90 or above on PageSpeed Insights, including on mobile.

If you’re trying to decide the right stack for a new build or a replatform, book a 20 minute architecture call. We’ll look at your requirements honestly and tell you whether Astro is the right choice for your specific situation.

You can also read how our web development service works, or explore the Studio Site and Launch Sprint options for your project scope.