Streaming Rendering vs Static Site Generation

Developers should use streaming rendering when building applications where time-to-first-byte (TTFB) and initial content display speed are critical, such as e-commerce sites, news portals, or dashboards 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.

Streaming Rendering

Nice Pick

Developers should use streaming rendering when building applications where time-to-first-byte (TTFB) and initial content display speed are critical, such as e-commerce sites, news portals, or dashboards

Pros

• It reduces perceived latency by showing a loading state or partial content immediately, which is particularly beneficial for users on slow networks or with large, data-dependent pages
• Related to: server-side-rendering, react-server-components

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

The Bottom Line

Streaming Rendering wins

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