Incremental Static Regeneration vs Static Site Generation

Developers should use ISR when building websites that require fast loading times and SEO benefits of static pages but also need to display frequently updated content, such as e-commerce product listings, news articles, or user-generated content meets developers should use ssg for content-heavy sites like blogs, documentation, portfolios, and marketing pages where content changes infrequently, as it offers superior performance, security (no server-side vulnerabilities), and low hosting costs. Here's our take.

Incremental Static Regeneration

Nice Pick

Developers should use ISR when building websites that require fast loading times and SEO benefits of static pages but also need to display frequently updated content, such as e-commerce product listings, news articles, or user-generated content

Pros

• It is particularly useful in frameworks like Next
• Related to: next-js, static-site-generation

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Static Site Generation

Developers should use SSG for content-heavy sites like blogs, documentation, portfolios, and marketing pages where content changes infrequently, as it offers superior performance, security (no server-side vulnerabilities), and low hosting costs

Pros

• It's ideal for projects requiring SEO optimization, global scalability via CDNs, and simplified deployment workflows, especially when combined with modern frameworks like Next
• Related to: next-js, gatsby

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Incremental Static Regeneration is a concept while Static Site Generation is a methodology. We picked Incremental Static Regeneration based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Incremental Static Regeneration wins

Based on overall popularity. Incremental Static Regeneration is more widely used, but Static Site Generation excels in its own space.