Server-Side Rendering vs Static Site Generation

Developers should use SSR when building applications that require fast initial page loads, strong SEO performance, or accessibility on low-powered devices 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 accessibility on low-powered devices

Pros

• It is particularly valuable for content-heavy websites like blogs, e-commerce platforms, and news sites where search engine visibility and quick first impressions are critical
• 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.