Server-Side Rendering vs Static Site Generation

Developers should use SSR when building applications that require fast initial page loads, strong SEO performance, or improved accessibility for users with slow connections or assistive technologies 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.

Server-Side Rendering

Nice Pick

Developers should use SSR when building applications that require fast initial page loads, strong SEO performance, or improved accessibility for users with slow connections or assistive technologies

Pros

• It is particularly valuable for content-heavy websites, e-commerce platforms, and applications where search engine visibility is critical, as it ensures content is available to crawlers and users without waiting for JavaScript execution
• Related to: next-js, nuxt-js

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. Server-Side Rendering is a concept while Static Site Generation is a methodology. We picked Server-Side Rendering based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Server-Side Rendering wins

Based on overall popularity. Server-Side Rendering is more widely used, but Static Site Generation excels in its own space.