Why We Chose Next.js Static Export Over Server-Side Rendering

When we built the CoreAxis portfolio site, we had a choice: server-side rendering (SSR) or static export. We chose static export, and here is why. ## The Case for Static Export A company portfolio site has a specific content pattern: pages change when someone in the admin panel edits them, not on every visitor request. This means we can generate all the HTML at build time and serve it from a simple web server. The benefits are significant: - **Performance**: Every page loads instantly from pre-built HTML. - **Hosting flexibility**: Deploy to any static host, VPS, or CDN. No Node.js server required. - **Cost**: Serving static files costs a fraction of running an SSR server. - **Reliability**: No server means no server crashes. ## The Trade-off: Content Freshness Admin edits save to the database immediately but the public site needs a rebuild and redeploy. For a company portfolio with infrequent updates, this is acceptable — the cycle takes under 2 minutes. ## When SSR Makes More Sense If your site has user-specific pages, real-time data, or thousands of frequently changing pages, SSR or ISR is better. But for most business websites, static export is the simpler, faster, cheaper option.