Start from who edits the site
The stack conversation usually starts with technology and should start with people. If marketing publishes weekly, the build must give them a safe editor. If the site changes twice a year, an editor is overhead nobody maintains.
We ask two questions first: who edits, and how often. The answers eliminate most options before performance or framework preference is even discussed.
Four options, honestly compared
Each of these is the right answer for some businesses and the wrong answer for others.
- Static build with Vite and React: fastest to load, cheapest to host, developer-edited content
- Headless CMS with a React or Next.js front end: marketing autonomy plus performance, more moving parts
- Next.js with server rendering: best when SEO depth, dynamic pages and app-like behaviour must coexist
- Traditional CMS: quickest for content-heavy brochure sites, needs disciplined plugin and security hygiene
SEO is a rendering decision
Search crawlers index what the server returns. A client-only React application can rank, but it makes every technical SEO decision harder than it needs to be.
For anything where organic search matters commercially, we default to server-rendered or pre-rendered pages with per-page titles, descriptions, canonical tags and structured data generated from the same data that renders the page.
What we build with
Our web team ships production work in React JS, Next.js and Vite, with Node.js services behind them, plus static and CMS builds where those fit better. The stack is chosen per engagement against the editing model, SEO requirement and integration surface rather than a house preference.
Planning something similar for your organisation?
Talk to the InfozIT team about your CRM, HRMS, ERP, product or engineering requirement.