Next.js
Next.js is probably the best framework available for building a modern site, if you can write code. Six to seven months in, running several of my own sites including this one, nothing broke and nothing required patching. The friction score is 2 and that number is honest: the technical prerequisite is steep, and this is not a tool for people who are not technical and do not want to work with a codebase.

- Core job5
- Does it do the job you actually need doing, not just the one it advertises?
- Reliability5
- How often does it fail in real use?
- Friction2
- Setup cost plus daily overhead.
- Value5
- Against what it replaced, or against doing nothing.
- Durability5
- Will this still be worth it in twelve months? Company stability, roadmap, lock-in.
- Verdict
- kept
- Used for
- Six to seven months, several sites including this one
- Cost
- Free, open source
- Cost
- Free, open source
- Used for
- Six to seven months, several sites
Worth stating plainly: this site is built with Next.js, and so are several other sites in my stack. A glowing review here is the least credible page on the site unless that conflict is acknowledged upfront. The scores are still the scores. As for what it delivers: fast, SEO-friendly, flexible across layout and CMS structure, and responsive. Authored directly through Claude Code during build, which removes most of the friction around component work. In six to seven months of real use, nothing broke and nothing required attention from a security standpoint.
Friction scores 2, and that is the honest centre of this entry. The technical prerequisite is steep. Working at any kind of speed depends on having an AI pair. Without one, the learning curve is real and the speed advantage that makes this appealing disappears. This is the best available tool for building a modern site if you can write code. It is not an option if you cannot, and describing it otherwise would be misleading.
The security case is worth noting separately. No plugin ecosystem means a narrow attack surface, and that compounds over a multi-year horizon in ways that plugin-heavy platforms cannot match. The assessment from use: very hard to breach.
Good at
- SEO. Fast, responsive, ranks well when the content is there.
- Security. No plugin ecosystem means a narrow attack surface.
- Flexibility. Layout and CMS elements can move; adapts to different site structures.
Bad at
- High technical prerequisite. Productive output at speed depends on an AI pair. Without one, the learning curve is the dominant factor.
What broke or annoyed me
- Nothing in six to seven months of use.
Not for
- People who are not technical and do not want to learn a codebase. This is not a managed CMS and it is not designed to be one.
How I review
This one is free and open source, so there was nothing to buy. I used it before writing anything, and received nothing in exchange for this review. There are no affiliate links on this page. Every review is scored against the same five axes shown above, and the rubric is printed so the number can be argued with. Every subscription I pay for, including the ones I cancelled, is listed on the stack.
Updated 2026-07-29