Server Side Rendering vs Static Site Generation

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 meets developers should use static site generation when building performance-critical websites that require fast load times, high security, and low hosting costs, such as blogs, portfolios, or documentation sites. Here's our take.

Server Side Rendering

Nice Pick

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

Static Site Generation

Developers should use Static Site Generation when building performance-critical websites that require fast load times, high security, and low hosting costs, such as blogs, portfolios, or documentation sites

Pros

• It's particularly valuable for SEO optimization since search engines can easily crawl pre-rendered HTML, and it reduces server load by serving static files
• 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.

Related Comparisons