Static Site Generation vs Server Side Rendering

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 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 Site Generation

Nice Pick

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

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

The Bottom Line

Static Site Generation wins

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