Traditional Server Side Rendering vs Static Site Generation

Developers should use Traditional SSR when building content-heavy websites that require fast initial page loads, good SEO performance, and accessibility for users with limited JavaScript support 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.

Traditional Server Side Rendering

Nice Pick

Developers should use Traditional SSR when building content-heavy websites that require fast initial page loads, good SEO performance, and accessibility for users with limited JavaScript support

Pros

• It is ideal for static or semi-dynamic sites like blogs, news portals, and e-commerce product pages, where server-generated content ensures reliable delivery and indexing by search engines
• Related to: html, css

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

The Bottom Line

Traditional Server Side Rendering wins

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