Astro vs Next.js (eastondev benchmark, Dec 2025): ~40% faster, ~90% less JS for static content
Claim: Astro benchmarks show ~40% faster page loads and ~90% less JavaScript than equivalent Next.js builds for static content sites.
Source: eastondev.com Astro vs Next.js benchmark (December 2025, updated May 2026); also Alex Bobes 2026.
Confidence: Single-source (vendor-neutral practitioner benchmark; methodology disclosed but small sample).
Why it matters for Candid: The Astro/Next.js/Hugo/Qwik wave is winning on CWV because partial hydration / islands architecture / static-first rendering sends 60-90% less JavaScript than a hydrated React app for the same content. For content-heavy SMB marketing sites, the architectural choice can be more impactful than any post-launch optimization. Pairs with the brief 10 examples ([[astro-cloudflare-pages-cost-vs-nextjs]], [[state-of-js-2025-astro-satisfaction-lead]]).
Referenced by (4)
- reference Research brief: Page Speed as a Moat — why CWV separates the agencies from the freelancers (piece 9 of 15) relates-to
- reference Astro on Cloudflare Pages: ~$0/month vs Next.js SSR ~$20-200/month (Bobes 2026 benchmark) relates-to
- rule RULE: For content-heavy SEO/AI-critical clients (~$10k+ budget), default proposal is headless WordPress + Astro on Cloudflare Pages depends-on
- reference Next.js suffered a 10 percentage-point CWV drop when FID was replaced by INP (March 2024) — "modern stack" is not synonymous with "fast" relates-to