Astro vs HTMX for Solo Developers

Quick Comparison

Astro Overview

Astro is a static-first web framework that excels at content. It renders pages to HTML at build time, ships zero JavaScript by default, and supports component islands for targeted interactivity. Content collections give you a type-safe way to work with markdown, MDX, and structured data.

I keep reaching for Astro when I need a fast content site. The build output is clean static HTML that hosts anywhere. The development experience is smooth. And the ability to drop in React, Svelte, or Vue components as islands means you're never limited to just static pages when you need a bit of interactivity.

HTMX Overview

HTMX is a small JavaScript library (14KB) that makes HTML capable of dynamic interactions. Instead of writing JavaScript to fetch data and update the DOM, you add HTML attributes like hx-get, hx-post, and hx-swap. Your server returns HTML fragments, and HTMX replaces parts of the page.

The approach is refreshingly simple. Need search-as-you-type? Put hx-get="/search" and hx-trigger="keyup changed delay:300ms" on your input. Need infinite scroll? Add hx-get="/more" and hx-trigger="revealed" to a sentinel element. The server does the work. HTMX does the swapping.

HTMX works with any backend. Django, Rails, Go, Express, PHP. Whatever can return HTML works. There's no build step, no bundler, no framework opinions about how you structure your code.

Key Differences

Architecture. Astro is a build-time framework that generates static files. HTMX is a runtime library that makes server-rendered pages interactive. Astro does its work before the user visits the page. HTMX does its work while the user interacts with the page.

Backend requirements. Astro can be fully static with no backend at all. Content lives in files, builds to HTML, deploys to any CDN. HTMX requires a running server because every interaction triggers an HTTP request for HTML fragments. You need a backend.

Content vs application. Astro is optimized for content that doesn't change per-user. Blog posts, documentation, marketing pages. HTMX is optimized for dynamic content that responds to user input. Search results, form submissions, live dashboards. Different tools for different interaction patterns.

JavaScript involvement. Both minimize JavaScript, but in different ways. Astro ships zero JS and lets you opt in with islands. HTMX ships 14KB and replaces the need for custom JavaScript by making HTML attributes do the interactive work. Both approaches are far lighter than a full SPA framework.

Deployment. Astro sites deploy to any static host. Netlify, Vercel, S3, GitHub Pages. Free hosting is easy. HTMX-based apps need a server, which means either a VPS, a PaaS like Railway or Render, or a serverless function setup. Slightly more complex and potentially more expensive.

Component reuse. Astro has a component model. You build .astro components or import components from React, Svelte, etc. HTMX has no component model. You rely on server-side templates and partials. For complex UIs, Astro's component approach scales better.

When to Choose Astro

• You're building a blog, documentation site, portfolio, or marketing page
• Your content doesn't need to change dynamically per user
• You want zero JavaScript and the fastest possible page loads
• Simple, cheap deployment to static hosting is important
• You want a component model for organizing your UI

When to Choose HTMX

• Your site needs dynamic, user-specific interactions (search, forms, live data)
• You have a backend in Python, Go, Ruby, or another language you prefer
• You want interactivity without a JavaScript build pipeline
• You're building admin panels, dashboards, or internal tools
• You prefer server-rendered HTML over client-side rendering

The Verdict

Astro and HTMX occupy different spaces, and there's actually a strong case for using both. Astro for your static marketing pages and blog. HTMX for your dynamic application behind a login. They share a philosophy of minimal JavaScript but apply it to different problems.

If you're choosing one tool for one project, the decision is about what you're building. Content that doesn't change per user? Astro. Dynamic interactions that respond to user input? HTMX. Most solo developers will build both types of things over time.

Astro gets the higher rating because content sites are more common as first projects for solo developers, and Astro handles that use case with less infrastructure. But HTMX is an equally powerful tool in its domain. Both are excellent choices that respect your time and your users' browsers.