Astro vs SolidJS for Solo Developers

Quick Comparison

Astro Overview

Astro is the best content framework I've used. Zero JavaScript by default, component islands for interactivity, content collections for markdown/MDX, and the ability to use React, Svelte, Vue, or Solid components inside Astro pages. The build output is static HTML that loads almost instantly.

For solo developers working on blogs, documentation, portfolios, or marketing sites, Astro removes almost all friction. You write content, create components, and Astro generates a fast static site. There's no state management to configure, no client-side routing to debug, no hydration to worry about. The result is a site that's fast by default and simple to deploy anywhere.

The interesting connection here is that Astro and SolidJS actually work together. You can use Solid components as interactive islands inside Astro pages. So this comparison isn't purely "one or the other."

SolidJS Overview

SolidJS is a reactive UI library that competes with React on developer experience while outperforming it on every benchmark. Components use JSX, so the syntax feels familiar, but the runtime is fundamentally different. No virtual DOM. Fine-grained signals track exactly which DOM nodes depend on which data, and only those nodes update when data changes.

SolidStart is the meta-framework layer that adds SSR, file-based routing, and server functions. Think of it as SolidJS's answer to Next.js or SvelteKit. It's capable but young. The documentation is improving, the community is growing, but you'll encounter gaps that more established frameworks have already filled.

For solo developers, Solid's performance is its calling card. If your project involves rendering lots of dynamic data, frequent updates, or complex interactive interfaces, Solid handles it with less overhead than alternatives.

Key Differences

Primary use case. Astro builds content-heavy, mostly-static websites. SolidJS (via SolidStart) builds interactive web applications. These are fundamentally different jobs. Comparing them head-to-head is like comparing a pickup truck to a sports car. Both are vehicles, but you'd choose each for different reasons.

JavaScript strategy. Astro ships zero JS until you ask for it. SolidJS ships its compiled reactive runtime plus your application code. For content sites, Astro's approach produces faster pages. For interactive apps, Solid's compiled output is among the smallest and fastest of any framework.

Component model. Astro has its own .astro component format plus support for multiple UI frameworks including Solid. SolidJS has its own component model using JSX and signals. The key difference is that Astro can consume Solid components, but Solid can't consume Astro components. Astro is the host, Solid is the guest.

Data handling. Astro uses content collections and build-time data fetching. SolidStart uses createRouteData and server functions for runtime data loading. Astro's is simpler for static content. Solid's is more capable for dynamic, user-specific data.

Ecosystem maturity. Astro has a strong, growing community with excellent documentation and integrations. Solid's community is smaller but enthusiastic. Both are in good shape compared to truly niche frameworks, but Astro has more resources available when you need help.

When to Choose Astro

• You're building a content-driven website (blog, docs, portfolio, marketing)
• You want the fastest possible page loads with minimal effort
• You prefer using components from your favorite UI framework inside a static shell
• Your site's interactivity is limited to specific sections (forms, search, widgets)
• Simple deployment to static hosting is important

When to Choose SolidJS

• You're building an interactive application with lots of dynamic state
• Raw rendering performance is a genuine requirement
• You like React's JSX syntax but want better performance
• Your project involves complex UIs with frequent data updates
• You want to explore fine-grained reactivity as a paradigm

The Verdict

The best answer here might be "both." Astro for your marketing site, landing pages, and blog. Solid components as islands inside Astro where you need interactivity. SolidStart for a separate application if you're building something that needs full-stack capabilities.

If you're choosing just one, it depends entirely on what you're building. Content site? Astro, no question. Interactive application? SolidJS with SolidStart. Most solo developers building their first project probably need a content site more than they need a dynamic app, so Astro tends to be the more practical starting point. But Solid is a fantastic tool for the right job, and using it as islands inside Astro gives you the best of both worlds.