Next.js is a full-stack React framework maintained by Vercel. It extends React with production-ready features like server-side rendering (SSR), static-site generation (SSG), API routes, file-based routing, and optimized bundling. Unlike using React alone, Next.js provides a batteries-included setup for building scalable, performant web applications with minimal configuration.
One of the main reasons Next.js became so popular is because it solved server rendering and deployment complexity for React apps. Before Next.js, teams often had to hand-roll SSR or static export setups, which were fragile and hard to maintain. With Next.js, you get those patterns as defaults, plus a clear deployment pipeline to Vercel or any other platform.
That all said, Next.js is really good: it gives React the structure it doesn’t have by default, while keeping the flexibility React developers are used to. The ecosystem around Next.js is large, battle-tested, and supported by both open source contributors and Vercel’s commercial backing. For many, it’s the default way to build production React apps today.
The Use Case
When to use (pros)
- Full-stack capabilities: Mix front-end UI with serverless functions and APIs in one codebase.
- Rendering flexibility: Choose between SSR, SSG, ISR (Incremental Static Regeneration), or client-side rendering per page.
- File-based routing: No need to configure routers manually; folder structure maps directly to routes.
- Great DX with Vercel: Instant previews, optimized deployments, image optimization, and edge functions.
- Ecosystem maturity: Tons of tutorials, boilerplates, and plugins. Most React devs already know or can quickly adapt.
- Performance features baked in: Automatic code-splitting, optimized images/fonts, and streaming server rendering in modern versions.
- Good for SEO: Server-side rendering and static generation make it ideal for content-heavy or marketing-focused sites.
When not to use (cons)
- React dependency: You’re tied to React’s ecosystem, which can be heavier than alternatives like SvelteKit or Qwik.
- Complexity at scale: Advanced patterns (app directory, server components, caching) add complexity that smaller projects may not need.
- Learning curve for new conventions: Concepts like ISR, middleware, andReact Server Components can be tricky if you only know plain React.
- Build/deployment opinions: While flexible, some tooling is opinionated around Vercel’s ecosystem (though you can deploy elsewhere).
- Not the lightest option: Even with optimizations, bundle size and runtime cost can be higher than frameworks built for minimal JS.
Suitability by Project Scale
Large companies
- Pros: Enterprise-ready, widely adopted, and solves SSR/SSG at scale. Ecosystem maturity means strong long-term support.
- Cons: Complexity grows with features; large teams may need to enforce conventions to avoid misuse.
Smaller projects
- Pros: Fast to prototype with file-based routing and SSR out of the box. Great for startups, SaaS dashboards, and content-heavy sites.
- Cons: If you don’t need SSR/SSG or React’s ecosystem, something lighter (e.g., SvelteKit, Astro) might be simpler.