Run Time Stats

Client Side Rendered Tests

First Paint (ms)

Framework	First Paint	FCP	INP
Astro	87.6ms	87.66ms	4.22ms
Next.js	348.6ms	348.42ms	16.34ms
Nuxt	170.8ms	170.54ms	10.9ms
React Router	146.6ms	146.41ms	14.59ms
SolidStart	108.2ms	108.18ms	15.9ms
SvelteKit	115.4ms	115.56ms	12.38ms
TanStack Start	154.2ms	154.26ms	31.94ms

Methodology

Each framework renders a table of 1000 rows with two UUID columns
Measured using Lighthouse flow with Chromium via Puppeteer for accurate browser metrics
First Paint and First Contentful Paint are measured on initial navigation
Interaction to Next Paint is measured by clicking the first row's detail link
Benchmarks run 5 times and results are averaged
Next.js wraps the client-side rendered table in a dynamic import with ssr: false to prevent build-time prerendering
TanStack Start, Nuxt, SvelteKit, and SolidStart disable SSR per-route
React Router uses route-level clientLoader functions with HydrateFallback so the client-rendered routes are not server-rendered
Astro uses client-only React islands for client-side rendered routes
Client-side rendered tests use each framework's normal production build because SPA-only build modes are not supported consistently across the frameworks being compared
Astro uses React for its client-side rendered test: the benchmark table and detail components are React islands rendered with client:only="react", which prevents Astro from server-rendering those components and lets them render only in the browser. Astro's ClientRouter is not used for this CSR test because it enables client-side transitions and soft navigation behavior rather than client-only rendering.

Server Side Rendered Tests

First Paint (ms)

Framework	First Paint	FCP	INP
Astro	67.6ms	67.51ms	0.46ms
Next.js	151ms	150.78ms	22.09ms
Nuxt	94.2ms	94.23ms	11.44ms
React Router	90ms	89.78ms	20.4ms
SolidStart	97.8ms	97.62ms	16.17ms
SvelteKit	87.6ms	87.46ms	13.19ms
TanStack Start	115ms	114.84ms	26.13ms

Methodology

Each framework renders a table of 1000 rows with two UUID columns
Measured using Lighthouse flow with Chromium via Puppeteer for accurate browser metrics
First Paint and First Contentful Paint are measured on initial navigation
Interaction to Next Paint is measured by clicking the first row's detail link
Benchmarks run 5 times and results are averaged
The measured route is /server-side-rendered, and detail navigation uses /server-side-rendered/:id.

Server Side Throughput Tests

Ops/sec

Framework	Ops/sec	Median Latency	Body Size	Duplication
Baseline HTML	848	1.199ms	96.83kb	1x
Astro	510	1.901ms	99.82kb	1x
Mastro	515	1.912ms	181.95kb	1x
Next.js	212	4.833ms	199.57kb	2x
Nuxt	349	2.769ms	201.27kb	2x
React Router	347	2.855ms	211.63kb	2x
SolidStart	384	2.546ms	230.24kb	2x
SvelteKit	433	2.239ms	183.49kb	2x
TanStack Start	314	3.144ms	193.62kb	2x

Methodology

Each framework renders the dedicated /ssr-throughput route with a table of 1000 rows and UUID id/name columns
This route intentionally does not render the exact same table as the browser SSR and load tests: it omits detail links and framework link components so router, prefetch, and navigation metadata do not dominate the request-handler throughput measurement
Mock HTTP requests bypass TCP overhead so this measures request-handler rendering throughput rather than full server throughput
Data is loaded asynchronously to simulate real-world data fetching
Duplication factor indicates how many times each UUID appears in the response (1x = optimal, 2x = includes hydration payload)
Benchmarks run for 10 seconds using tinybench
Frameworks are invoked through their production request handlers where possible. Web API handlers are called with Request objects; Node.js handlers are called with mock IncomingMessage and ServerResponse objects.
Next.js renders the throughput table as a client component, matching the setup from PR #94, so the benchmark compares traditional server-rendered React + hydration work instead of making Next.js render every table row as React Server Components
Inspired by eknkc/ssr-benchmark

Server Side Load Test

P99 Latency

P99 Latency at 25 Connections

P90 Latency

P90 Latency at 25 Connections

Framework	Peak req/s	Peak Connections	P99 @ 25	P99 @ 50	P99 @ 100	Total Req.
Baseline HTML	1,677	100	18ms	39ms	97ms	49,383
Astro	692.4	25	57ms	123ms	1786ms	20,902
Next.js	36	1	2181ms	4678ms	4748ms	990
Nuxt	64.8	10	2169ms	4174ms	4286ms	2,035
React Router	165	25	351ms	1743ms	3779ms	5,456
SolidStart	62.2	25	3345ms	3802ms	4034ms	2,003
SvelteKit	494	25	76ms	464ms	2831ms	15,728
TanStack Start	42	5	3827ms	4376ms	4251ms	1,298

Methodology

Each framework serves the server-rendered table route over a real local HTTP server
The measured route is /server-side-rendered, using the same 1000-row UUID table as the SSR request throughput and browser rendering tests
Load is applied in staged connection counts, from 1 through 200 concurrent connections, with each stage running for approximately 5 seconds
Peak requests/sec is the highest successful stage throughput observed during the staged run
P90 and P99 latency are compared at the 25-, 50-, and 100-connection stages for every framework, so latency is measured under the same concurrency pressure
Total requests cover the full staged load run, not only the peak stage

Core Web Vitals Desktop

Good Largest Contentful Paint

Measures how fast a page's main content loads. To provide a good user experience, the LCP should be 2.5 seconds or less.

Framework	LCP%	CLS%	FCP%	TTFB%	INP%
SolidStart	91	66	91	83	100
Astro	91	87	91	82	97
Nuxt.js	65	57	67	59	95
SvelteKit	79	77	78	71	94
Next.js	72	69	76	67	94
React Router	61	62	66	70	90

Methodology

All Core Web Vitals for Desktop are sourced from HTTP Archive
Metrics refresh monthly

Run Time Stats

Client Side Rendered Tests

First Paint (ms)

First Contentful Paint (ms)

Interaction to Next Paint (ms)

Methodology

Server Side Rendered Tests

First Paint (ms)

First Contentful Paint (ms)

Interaction to Next Paint (ms)

Methodology

Server Side Throughput Tests

Ops/sec

Body Size

Median Latency

Methodology

Server Side Load Test

P99 Latency

P99 Latency at 25 Connections

P99 Latency at 50 Connections

P99 Latency at 100 Connections

P90 Latency

P90 Latency at 25 Connections

P90 Latency at 50 Connections

P90 Latency at 100 Connections

Methodology

Core Web Vitals Desktop

Good Largest Contentful Paint

Good Cumulative Layout Shift

Good First Contentful Paint

Good Time To First Byte

Good Interaction to Next Paint

Methodology