Next.js vs React + Inertia for Landing Pages: Which Loads Faster?

Two of the most popular stacks for building modern interfaces in the PHP/JavaScript ecosystem are Next.js (React with native SSR and SSG) and React + Inertia.js (on Laravel). Both produce fast interfaces and reusable components. But they're not equal, and choosing the wrong one can cause friction you'll feel in performance, SEO or development time.

At Nebula we use both. Here we explain the differences that matter for landing pages and conversion-focused sites.

The context: what is each one?

Next.js is a React framework with Server-Side Rendering (SSR), Static Site Generation (SSG) and native API Routes support. It's backend-agnostic: the frontend connects to any API. Developed and maintained by Vercel, it has a huge ecosystem and is one of the industry standards for high-performance websites.

React + Inertia.js is a combination that allows you to build modern SPAs without completely separating the backend from the frontend. Inertia acts as the bridge between a Laravel backend and a React frontend, eliminating the need to build and maintain an independent REST API. The server is still Laravel; the client is still React; Inertia makes them talk to each other without duplicating logic.

Performance for landing pages: the real numbers

For landing pages, the metrics that matter most are the time until the user sees content (LCP - Largest Contentful Paint) and the Google PageSpeed Insights score, which directly impacts SEO positioning.

Next.js with Static Site Generation (SSG) generates static HTML pages during the build. The server - or rather, the CDN - responds instantly with complete HTML. There's no need to wait for the server to process anything at request time. For well-optimized simple landing pages, Google PageSpeed scores are consistently between 95 and 100.

Inertia.js with Laravel renders from the server but as an SPA: the first load includes minimal HTML and then React takes control on the client side. The additional initialization JavaScript adds perceptible latency on the first load, especially on slow mobile connections.

The concrete comparison

Metric	Next.js (SSG)	Inertia + Laravel
Server response time (TTFB)	Very low from CDN	Depends on the server
LCP under normal conditions	Excellent	Good
Typical Lighthouse score	90-100	75-90
SEO without additional configuration	Excellent	Requires SSR configuration
Hosting cost	Low (Vercel has a free tier)	Requires a dedicated server
Optimized image support	Native with next/image	Manual

For pure landing pages focused on SEO and load speed: Next.js wins clearly.

But performance isn't the only criterion

Development speed

If the project has a Laravel backend with complex business logic that the frontend needs to use, Inertia.js eliminates the need to build and maintain a REST API as an intermediate layer. That can be a huge advantage in development time.

Next.js with a separate backend means maintaining two projects, two deployment processes and type synchronization between frontend and backend if you use TypeScript in both. For small teams, that overhead is noticeable.

For full-stack projects with a single team: Inertia + Laravel usually wins in development speed.

SEO

Next.js with SSG or SSR generates complete HTML on the server. Google's crawlers index the content without needing to execute JavaScript. It's the solution with the least friction for SEO.

Inertia.js can achieve SSR with additional configuration, but it's more complex to set up and maintain. For a landing page where SEO is critical, the cost of that configuration doesn't make much sense when Next.js gives it for free.

Team and separation of responsibilities

If the frontend team and the backend team work separately, the clean separation of Next.js plus REST API is more appropriate. Each team can work and deploy independently.

If it's a small team that touches the entire stack, Inertia's integration eliminates operational complexity.

When we use each one at Nebula

We use Next.js for:

Landing pages and marketing sites where SEO is the priority

Projects where the frontend and backend are separate teams or systems

When measurable performance is an explicit client requirement

Projects where the client needs the frontend code without Laravel dependency (for example, to evolve it with another team)

We use Inertia + Laravel for:

SaaS and web applications where the backend and frontend business logic are closely related

Projects where the same team handles the entire stack

When delivery time is critical and the backend is already in Laravel

Internal systems and dashboards where SEO isn't a relevant factor

A real case where the difference matters in practice

Epic Bariloche - an adventure tourism landing page in Patagonia - we built with Next.js. The goal was Google positioning for local tourism searches in Bariloche. Less than 60 days after launch, the site appeared on the first page for more than 15 relevant keywords.

That wouldn't have been as immediate with an Inertia SPA without additional SSR configuration.

MyOfficeTaxes - the tax automation SaaS - we built with Inertia + Laravel. The business logic is complex, the flows between backend and frontend are dense, and the SEO of the internal application doesn't matter. Inertia let us move fast without duplicating validations and business rules in two places.

The honest answer

If your goal is a landing page that ranks on Google and loads fast on mobile, Next.js is the answer without much debate.

If your goal is a complex application where the backend and frontend share a lot of logic and the team is small, Inertia + Laravel will probably give you more development speed with less overhead.

And if you need both: a public landing page with Next.js and an internal application with Inertia + Laravel can coexist perfectly.

Questions about which stack to use in your next project?

Schedule a diagnostic. We'll explain what makes sense for your specific case and why. No commitment and no trying to sell you the most expensive stack.