Static Campaigns vs Server Side Rendering

Developers should use static campaigns when building high-performance, cost-effective marketing pages that require minimal maintenance and high security, such as for time-sensitive promotions or SEO-focused content meets developers should use ssr when building applications that require fast initial page loads, improved seo for search engine crawlers, or better performance on low-powered devices. Here's our take.

Static Campaigns

Nice Pick

Developers should use static campaigns when building high-performance, cost-effective marketing pages that require minimal maintenance and high security, such as for time-sensitive promotions or SEO-focused content

Pros

• This approach is ideal for scenarios where content changes infrequently, as it reduces server load and deployment complexity, making it suitable for startups, agencies, or teams with limited resources
• Related to: static-site-generators, jamstack

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Server Side Rendering

Developers should use SSR when building applications that require fast initial page loads, improved SEO for search engine crawlers, or better performance on low-powered devices

Pros

• It's particularly useful for content-heavy websites like blogs, e-commerce platforms, and news sites where first contentful paint is critical
• Related to: next-js, nuxt-js

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Static Campaigns is a methodology while Server Side Rendering is a concept. We picked Static Campaigns based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Static Campaigns wins

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