Why I Switched to Astro for Documentation

After building documentation sites with Next.js, Gatsby, and Hugo, I finally found my sweet spot with Astro. Here’s why.

The Problem

Documentation sites are fundamentally content-heavy, read-heavy applications. They don’t need:

• Complex client-side state management
• Real-time updates
• Heavy JavaScript frameworks

But they DO need:

• Lightning-fast page loads
• Excellent SEO
• Great developer experience
• Markdown support

Why Not Next.js?

I love Next.js for web applications, but for docs:

• Too much JavaScript shipped to the client
• SSR complexity for what should be static pages
• Bundle size grows with features
• Build times increase with page count

Why Astro Wins

1. Zero JavaScript by Default

Astro ships zero JavaScript to the client by default. You add interactivity only where needed through “islands.”

2. Content Collections

Built-in content management with type safety:

const posts = await getCollection('blog');

3. Framework Agnostic

Use React, Vue, Svelte, or nothing — mix and match in the same project.

4. Performance

• Lighthouse scores consistently 95+
• Static HTML with no hydration overhead
• Built-in image optimization

The Results

After migrating:

Metric	Next.js	Astro
Build Time	45s	12s
Page Size	180KB	25KB
Lighthouse	82	98
JS Shipped	120KB	5KB

Conclusion

If you’re building a documentation site, a blog, or any content-focused website, Astro is the best choice in 2026. Save the complex frameworks for complex applications.

TL;DR: Right tool for the right job. Documentation doesn’t need React hydration.