We have shipped 23 production projects in the last 18 months across Next.js, Astro, and Remix. I am going to tell you which one we reach for first — and it is not the one you would expect.
Here is the thing most framework comparisons get wrong: they compare features in a vacuum. "Next.js has Server Components!" "Astro has Islands!" "Remix has loaders!" Cool. But what does that mean when you are three weeks into a project, your client wants a change, and you are staring at a build error at 11 PM? That is where framework choice actually matters.
At CODERCOPS, we do not have the luxury of being framework evangelists. We pick the tool that ships the project fastest, performs the best for the use case, and causes the fewest headaches six months later when the client needs changes. So here is what we have actually learned — the good, the bad, and the stuff nobody talks about.
The Philosophy Behind Each Framework
Before diving into benchmarks and code, you need to understand what each framework believes. Because their philosophy dictates everything — from how you structure data fetching to how your production bundle looks.
Next.js 15: "We Do Everything"
Next.js is the Swiss Army knife of React frameworks. It wants to be your full-stack solution. Server Components, Server Actions, middleware, API routes, image optimization, font optimization — it is all built in.
The bet Next.js makes: You want one framework that handles everything, and you are willing to accept complexity in exchange for capability. The App Router with React Server Components is genuinely powerful. But it is also the steepest learning curve of the three.
Vercel's ecosystem wraps around it — hosting, analytics, edge functions, KV storage. This is both a strength (everything works together) and a concern (vendor coupling).
Astro 5: "Send Less JavaScript"
Astro takes the opposite approach. Its core belief is that most websites send way too much JavaScript to the browser. For content-focused sites — blogs, marketing pages, documentation, portfolios — you probably do not need a full React app running on the client.
The bet Astro makes: Your website is mostly content, with pockets of interactivity. Those interactive pockets (islands) can use React, Vue, Svelte, or whatever you want. Everything else ships as zero-JS HTML. The result? Blazing fast pages.
Astro 5 brought Content Layer, Server Islands, and a mature integration ecosystem. It is no longer "just a static site generator." It handles SSR, API endpoints, and dynamic content just fine.
Remix: "Use The Platform"
Remix believes that web standards already solved most of your problems. Forms? Use HTML forms with progressive enhancement. Data loading? Use the server, not client-side state management libraries. Caching? Use HTTP caching headers.
The bet Remix makes: If you build on web fundamentals, your app works without JavaScript, degrades gracefully, and avoids the complexity of client-side state management. The loader/action pattern is elegant and forces you to think about data flow clearly.
After the Shopify acquisition and the merger with React Router v7, Remix's future is in a transitional phase. The framework works great, but the community is smaller and the direction is less clear than it was two years ago.
Performance Benchmarks: Real Numbers From Real Projects
I am tired of seeing synthetic benchmarks that test "hello world" pages. Here are numbers from actual projects we have built — a content site with ~100 pages, similar content, deployed to similar infrastructure.
| Metric | Next.js 15 | Astro 5 | Remix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial JS bundle (typical content page) | ~85 KB | ~12 KB | ~65 KB |
| TTFB (SSR, same hosting region) | ~120 ms | ~80 ms | ~95 ms |
| LCP (content page, mobile 4G) | ~1.2 s | ~0.8 s | ~1.0 s |
| FCP (content page, mobile 4G) | ~0.9 s | ~0.5 s | ~0.7 s |
| CLS | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Build time (100 pages) | ~45 s | ~20 s | ~35 s |
| Lighthouse Performance Score | 92 | 99 | 95 |
| Full page size (transferred) | ~320 KB | ~85 KB | ~210 KB |
The takeaway is clear: For content-heavy pages, Astro wins on every performance metric. That 12 KB initial bundle versus 85 KB is not a rounding error — it is a fundamentally different approach. Astro ships HTML. Next.js ships a React application.
But here is the nuance: when you add heavy interactivity, these numbers shift. A dashboard with real-time updates, complex forms, and client-side state? Next.js and Remix close the gap because you need that JavaScript anyway.
Where These Numbers Come From
We built the same marketing site (homepage, about, blog with 50 posts, contact form) in all three frameworks. Same content, same images (optimized), same hosting (Vercel for Next.js and Astro, Fly.io for Remix). We ran Lighthouse and WebPageTest from the same region.
The Astro version had two interactive islands: a contact form (React) and a mobile navigation menu (vanilla JS). The Next.js version was a standard App Router setup with Server Components. The Remix version used the standard loader pattern.
Developer Experience: What It Actually Feels Like
Performance is half the story. The other half is how painful or pleasant it is to build with each framework daily. Here is our honest assessment after hundreds of hours with each.
Learning Curve
Next.js 15 — Steep and getting steeper. The App Router fundamentally changed how Next.js works. Server Components, the use client directive, Server Actions, parallel routes, intercepting routes — there is a lot to learn. If you are coming from Pages Router, it feels like learning a new framework. If you are new to Next.js entirely, expect 2-3 weeks before you feel productive.
The mental model of "where does this code run?" is genuinely confusing at first. You will accidentally try to use useState in a Server Component. You will get hydration mismatches. You will wonder why your console.log shows up in the terminal instead of the browser. It clicks eventually, but the ramp-up is real.
Astro 5 — Gentle and intuitive. If you know HTML and have used any component framework, you can be productive in Astro in a day or two. The .astro file format is just HTML with a frontmatter script block. There is very little magic.
---
// This runs on the server at build/request time
const posts = await fetch('https://api.example.com/posts').then(r => r.json());
---
<html>
<body>
<h1>Blog</h1>
{posts.map(post => (
<article>
<h2>{post.title}</h2>
<p>{post.excerpt}</p>
</article>
))}
</body>
</html>That is it. No use client. No special data fetching hooks. No build configuration. Write HTML, add some dynamic data, ship it. The island architecture (client:load, client:visible, client:idle) is easy to grasp — you explicitly opt in to client-side JavaScript.
Remix — Moderate but logical. Remix has a clear mental model: loaders fetch data, actions handle mutations, components render UI. Once you understand this pattern, everything else follows. The learning curve comes from understanding web standards (HTTP caching, form actions, progressive enhancement) — which is knowledge that transfers everywhere.
// Remix loader/action pattern
export async function loader({ params }: LoaderFunctionArgs) {
const post = await getPost(params.slug);
if (!post) throw new Response("Not Found", { status: 404 });
return json({ post });
}
export async function action({ request }: ActionFunctionArgs) {
const formData = await request.formData();
await createComment(formData);
return redirect(`/posts/${formData.get("slug")}`);
}
export default function Post() {
const { post } = useLoaderData<typeof loader>();
return <article>{/* render post */}</article>;
}Documentation Quality
Next.js: Comprehensive but overwhelming. The docs try to cover every possible use case, which means finding the specific thing you need can take a while. The App Router docs are better than they were at launch, but there are still gaps — especially around advanced caching behavior and middleware edge cases. The examples repo is excellent though.
Astro: Best documentation of the three. Clear, well-organized, with practical examples. The Astro docs site is itself built with Astro (naturally), and it shows. Every concept has a "why" explanation, not just a "how." The recipes section is particularly useful.
Remix: Good but thin in places. The conceptual docs are excellent — they teach you why things work the way they do. But some API references lack depth, and since the React Router v7 merger, some docs reference patterns that have changed. The community Discord fills the gaps.
TypeScript Support
All three have excellent TypeScript support, but there are differences:
Next.js generates types automatically for route params and has strong inference for Server Components. The next.config.ts support is solid. However, some dynamic route patterns can produce confusing type errors.
Astro has great TypeScript support with full type inference in .astro files. The Content Collections API is fully typed. The astro check command catches issues before build. One minor annoyance: TypeScript in .astro files does not get the same IDE support as .tsx files.
Remix has the tightest type safety of the three. The loader to useLoaderData type inference is seamless — change your loader return type and your component types update automatically. This is genuinely impressive and catches bugs early.
Hot Module Reload Speed
This matters more than people think. When you are iterating on a component and every save takes 3 seconds to reflect, it adds up to hours of wasted time per week.
Next.js: Fast HMR for client components. Server Components require a full page refresh (no HMR), which is slower. Complex pages with many Server Components can feel sluggish during development. The Turbopack dev server (now stable) helps significantly — cold starts are much faster than webpack.
Astro: Very fast HMR. Changes reflect almost instantly because there is minimal client-side JavaScript to update. Content changes in Markdown/MDX files update in under 200ms typically.
Remix: Good HMR via Vite (Remix now uses Vite as its compiler). Loader changes trigger a data refetch without a full page reload, which is nice. Comparable to Next.js with Turbopack.
Ecosystem and Community: The Numbers That Matter
Framework choice is not just about the code. It is about the ecosystem — packages, integrations, hosting options, and job market demand.
| Factor | Next.js 15 | Astro 5 | Remix |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm weekly downloads | ~7.2M | ~520K | ~310K |
| GitHub stars | ~128K | ~48K | ~30K |
| Job postings (global, Q1 2026) | ~12,000 | ~1,200 | ~800 |
| Official integrations/plugins | 50+ | 120+ | 20+ |
| Core team size | ~30 (Vercel) | ~8 (Astro) | ~5 (Shopify) |
| Stack Overflow questions | ~180K | ~8K | ~5K |
Next.js dominates the job market. If you are hiring or looking for a job, Next.js skills are far more in demand. This is a practical consideration that many comparison articles ignore.
Astro has the richest integration ecosystem relative to its size. Official integrations for Tailwind, MDX, React, Vue, Svelte, Sitemap, RSS, image optimization, and dozens more. The community integration ecosystem is growing fast.
Remix has the smallest community but arguably the most passionate one. The Discord is active, and the quality of community packages is high even if the quantity is lower.
Hosting Options
Next.js: Vercel (optimized), Netlify, AWS Amplify, Docker/self-hosted, Cloudflare Pages (partial support). Full feature support really only on Vercel — some features like ISR, image optimization, and middleware behave differently on other platforms. This is the "Vercel lock-in" concern, and it is legitimate.
Astro: Vercel, Netlify, Cloudflare Pages, Deno Deploy, AWS, Docker, any static host. Astro's adapter system means you deploy anywhere with full feature support. No vendor lock-in whatsoever.
Remix: Vercel, Netlify, Fly.io, Cloudflare Workers, Deno Deploy, AWS, Docker. Remix's adapter system is flexible, and because it is built on web standards, it runs well on any platform that supports Node.js or the Web Fetch API.
Data Fetching: The Same Problem, Three Solutions
Let us compare how each framework handles the same task: fetching a list of blog posts from an API and rendering them.
Next.js 15 (App Router with Server Components)
// app/blog/page.tsx
// This is a Server Component by default — runs on the server
async function BlogPage() {
const res = await fetch('https://api.example.com/posts', {
next: { revalidate: 3600 } // ISR: revalidate every hour
});
const posts = await res.json();
return (
<main>
<h1>Blog</h1>
{posts.map((post: Post) => (
<article key={post.id}>
<h2>{post.title}</h2>
<p>{post.excerpt}</p>
</article>
))}
</main>
);
}
export default BlogPage;Pros: Clean async/await syntax right in the component. Caching is built in. No separate data-fetching layer.
Cons: The caching behavior is confusing. fetch is patched globally by Next.js with custom caching semantics that differ from standard fetch. Understanding when data is cached, revalidated, or fresh requires reading the docs carefully. The unstable_cache and revalidatePath/revalidateTag APIs add more complexity.
Astro 5
---
// src/pages/blog.astro
// Everything in the frontmatter runs on the server
const res = await fetch('https://api.example.com/posts');
const posts = await res.json();
---
<html>
<head><title>Blog</title></head>
<body>
<main>
<h1>Blog</h1>
{posts.map((post) => (
<article>
<h2>{post.title}</h2>
<p>{post.excerpt}</p>
</article>
))}
</main>
</body>
</html>Pros: Dead simple. Standard fetch — no framework magic. The separation between server code (frontmatter) and template (HTML) is crystal clear. For SSR mode, this runs on every request. For static mode, it runs at build time.
Cons: No built-in ISR equivalent (you handle caching at the infrastructure level). For highly dynamic data with complex caching needs, you are on your own.
Remix
// app/routes/blog.tsx
import { json } from "@remix-run/node";
import { useLoaderData } from "@remix-run/react";
export async function loader() {
const res = await fetch('https://api.example.com/posts');
const posts = await res.json();
return json({ posts }, {
headers: {
"Cache-Control": "public, max-age=3600, s-maxage=3600"
}
});
}
export default function Blog() {
const { posts } = useLoaderData<typeof loader>();
return (
<main>
<h1>Blog</h1>
{posts.map((post: Post) => (
<article key={post.id}>
<h2>{post.title}</h2>
<p>{post.excerpt}</p>
</article>
))}
</main>
);
}Pros: Uses standard HTTP caching headers — a concept that works everywhere, not just in Remix. The loader to useLoaderData type inference is excellent. Clear separation of data fetching and rendering.
Cons: You need to understand HTTP caching (which you should anyway, but it is an extra thing to learn). The json() helper feels like unnecessary ceremony for simple cases.
When To Use Each: Our Opinionated Recommendations
After shipping production projects with all three, here is our decision framework at CODERCOPS. We do not have a "favorite" — we have a decision tree.
Choose Astro When:
- Marketing sites and landing pages — Performance is king. Every 100ms of load time improvement increases conversions. Astro's near-zero JS approach wins here.
- Blogs and content sites — The Content Collections API (or Content Layer in v5) is purpose-built for this. MDX support is excellent. Our own website runs on Astro.
- Documentation sites — Starlight (Astro's docs theme) is the best documentation framework we have used. Better than Docusaurus, faster to set up.
- Agency portfolios — You want to showcase your work with fast-loading, visually polished pages. Not run a React SPA.
- SEO-critical sites — When organic search traffic is the primary growth channel, Astro's performance advantage directly translates to better Core Web Vitals and rankings.
Choose Next.js When:
- SaaS dashboards and web applications — Complex state management, real-time updates, role-based access, nested layouts. This is Next.js territory.
- E-commerce platforms — Product pages with dynamic pricing, cart functionality, checkout flows, admin panels. Next.js handles the full spectrum.
- Applications requiring auth and sessions — NextAuth.js (now Auth.js) integration is mature. Middleware for route protection works well.
- Projects that need the Vercel ecosystem — If you are already using Vercel for hosting, analytics, and edge functions, Next.js gives you the tightest integration.
- Team with React-heavy experience — If your team knows React deeply but not other frameworks, Next.js lets them stay in familiar territory.
Choose Remix When:
- Forms-heavy applications — Remix's progressive enhancement model means forms work without JavaScript. This is huge for accessibility and reliability.
- Applications requiring offline support — Remix's web-standards approach makes service worker integration cleaner.
- Projects where you want to minimize client-side state — Remix's loader/action pattern naturally pushes state to the server, reducing client complexity.
- Teams that value web standards — If your team philosophy is "learn the platform, not the framework," Remix teaches transferable skills.
What Each Framework Is Bad At: The Honest Section
This is the section most comparison articles skip. Every framework has weaknesses. Pretending otherwise does a disservice to developers making real decisions.
Where Next.js 15 Falls Short
1. It is overweight for simple sites. Building a 5-page marketing site with Next.js is like driving a semi-truck to the grocery store. You will ship 85KB+ of JavaScript for pages that could be pure HTML. The framework overhead is real.
2. The Vercel coupling is concerning. While Next.js technically runs anywhere, certain features — ISR, image optimization, middleware at the edge, analytics — work best (or only) on Vercel. Self-hosting Next.js requires significant DevOps knowledge and some features degrade. This is a strategic risk for projects with long lifespans.
3. App Router complexity is real. The mental model of Server Components vs Client Components, combined with the caching layer, parallel routes, and intercepting routes creates a high cognitive load. We have seen experienced React developers struggle with App Router for weeks. The "simple" things become complicated: "Why is my data stale?" "Why is this component re-rendering on the server?" "Why does my build fail with a hydration error?"
4. Build times scale poorly. For large sites (1000+ pages), Next.js build times can balloon to 10+ minutes even with ISR. Astro builds the same site in under 2 minutes.
5. The upgrade path is rough. Migrating from Pages Router to App Router is essentially a rewrite. Next.js 14 to 15 was smoother, but the framework moves fast and breaking changes are common.
Where Astro 5 Falls Short
1. Limited for highly interactive applications. If your site is 80%+ interactive components (think Figma, Google Docs, a trading dashboard), Astro's island architecture becomes awkward. You end up wrapping everything in client:load directives and losing the performance advantage that was the whole point.
2. Smaller job market. Astro developers are harder to find and hire. If you are building a team, this matters. There are roughly 10x more Next.js job postings than Astro ones.
3. Younger ecosystem. Astro's integration ecosystem is growing but still smaller than Next.js. You might not find a ready-made integration for niche use cases and will need to build it yourself.
4. Less full-stack capability. Astro's API routes and SSR work fine for simple use cases, but for complex backend logic — WebSocket connections, cron jobs, database migrations — you will need a separate backend. Astro does not try to be a full-stack framework, and that is a limitation when you need one.
5. The .astro file format is proprietary. Unlike JSX/TSX which works across frameworks, .astro files are Astro-specific. If you ever migrate away, those files do not transfer. Your React/Vue/Svelte island components do transfer, but the page templates do not.
Where Remix Falls Short
1. Community is shrinking. Since the Shopify acquisition and the React Router v7 merger, Remix's community momentum has slowed. Conference talks, blog posts, and tutorials are less frequent than they were in 2023-2024. Some prominent community members have moved on.
2. Fewer integrations. The ecosystem of pre-built integrations, starter templates, and third-party packages is significantly smaller than Next.js or even Astro. You will write more boilerplate.
3. The Shopify acquisition created uncertainty. Is Shopify investing in Remix as an open-source framework, or primarily using it for their own e-commerce platform? The answer is not entirely clear, and this ambiguity affects long-term confidence.
4. SSG support is an afterthought. Remix was built for SSR first. Static site generation was added later and does not feel as polished as Astro's or Next.js's static export. For primarily static sites, Remix is the wrong tool.
5. React Router v7 merger is confusing. The lines between "Remix" and "React Router v7" are blurry. Some people do not realize they are essentially the same thing now. This naming confusion hurts adoption and makes it harder to find relevant resources.
Our Pick at CODERCOPS: A Framework Decision Tree
We do not have a single "favorite." We have a decision process:
Is the site primarily content? (blog, docs, marketing)
YES → Astro 5
NO → Continue
Does it need complex interactivity? (dashboard, SaaS, real-time)
YES → Next.js 15
NO → Continue
Is progressive enhancement critical? (forms, accessibility)
YES → Remix
NO → Continue
Default → Astro 5 (because most sites are more content than app)In practice, here is how our last 23 projects broke down:
- 11 projects: Astro (marketing sites, blogs, portfolios, docs)
- 9 projects: Next.js (SaaS apps, dashboards, e-commerce)
- 3 projects: Remix (forms-heavy apps, progressive web apps)
Astro wins by volume because most of the web is content. When a client comes to us with "we need a website," 60% of the time they need a content site that is fast, looks great, and ranks well. Astro is built for exactly that.
But when a client says "we need a web application," Next.js is our go-to. Its ecosystem, community, and full-stack capabilities are unmatched.
Migration Considerations: Switching Between Frameworks
Already committed to one framework and wondering about switching? Here is what to expect:
Next.js to Astro
Difficulty: Moderate. Your React components transfer directly — Astro uses them as islands. The main work is restructuring pages from App Router conventions to Astro's file-based routing and moving data fetching from Server Components to Astro frontmatter scripts. Expect 2-3 weeks for a medium-sized site.
Astro to Next.js
Difficulty: Moderate to High. Your React island components transfer, but .astro files need to be rewritten as React components. You will need to add client-side state management that Astro did not require. Data fetching patterns change completely. Expect 3-4 weeks.
Remix to Next.js (or vice versa)
Difficulty: Moderate. Both are React-based, so components transfer. The main work is restructuring data fetching (loaders to Server Components or vice versa) and routing conventions. Expect 2-3 weeks.
Any Framework to Remix
Difficulty: Moderate. The loader/action pattern requires rethinking how you handle data and mutations. But once you internalize the pattern, migrations go smoothly. Expect 2-4 weeks.
General migration tip: Do not try to migrate everything at once. Start with a few pages, validate the approach, then migrate the rest. And budget 30% more time than you think you will need — migrations always surface edge cases.
The Bottom Line
There is no "best" framework. There is only the best framework for your specific project, team, and constraints.
If someone tells you "just use Next.js for everything" or "Astro is always faster," they are oversimplifying. Framework choice is an engineering decision that should consider performance requirements, team skills, project scope, hosting preferences, and long-term maintenance.
Our recommendation: Learn at least two of these three frameworks. Understanding how different frameworks approach the same problems makes you a better developer — regardless of which one you use day to day.
Need Help Choosing a Framework?
At CODERCOPS, we have built production applications across all three frameworks. We help teams choose the right technology stack, architect their applications, and ship on time. Whether you are starting a new project or considering a migration, we can help you make the right call.
Get in touch for a free 30-minute consultation on your project's framework needs. Or browse our other technical guides on our blog for more in-depth comparisons and tutorials.
Comments