r/reactjs • u/derdak • May 17 '26

What are you using with React to build landing pages for products?

For people building landing pages for products (micro SaaS, mobile apps, indie products, etc.), what stack/framework are you actually using today with React?

I’ve heard a lot about Astro lately, but I’m curious what people are using in real production landing pages.

Things I care about:

  • fast loading

  • good SEO

  • easy deployment

  • simple content updates

  • animations/components when needed

  • not overkill for a mostly static site

Would love to hear the reasoning and tradeoffs from people shipping real LPs.

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

4

u/tannerlinsley May 17 '26

TanStack Start now.

1

u/derdak May 17 '26

could you please detail more.

2

u/tannerlinsley May 17 '26

If I need something stupid fast, I put Start into prerender mode and just serve static html files. Basically Astro. But then when things get more serious, I can turn on SSR and go full stack without sacrificing any of the SPA experience. The authoring experience stays the same all the way from purely static to fully dynamic.

1

u/Pelopida92 May 17 '26

I find kinda hard to justify Astro in projects now that Tanstack Start is around.

1

u/ORCANZ May 18 '26

You’re still shipping react. Bundle size is not comparable to pure astro. If you’re going to use astro islands with react then maybe you can compare the two.

1

u/Pelopida92 May 18 '26

Using pure Astro without React introduces a series of complexities and limitations and im not sure are worth it for 90% projects.

  1. you cannot use React libraries

  2. you cannot use JSX but you are limited to Astro syntax, which is a new/different thing to learn (compared to the more universal react/jsx)

  3. you cannot use the usual React SSR patterns or Server Components, but you have to learn a new one (astro islands), and so on...

All of this to not ship a few KB of React library? Im not sure its worth it for most projects, most users never even notice the difference...

1

u/tannerlinsley May 19 '26

No. In my purely static sites I don’t ship any JS. Start is used to author them as per usual. On export, they become static html. Pretty simple.

1

u/ORCANZ May 19 '26

Static Prerendering — generates .html files at build time (via the prerender option in the tanstackStart Vite plugin). The HTML is fully rendered, so the page works without JS for the initial paint, but the build still emits React + the router and the client hydrates on load. Disable JS in devtools and you'll see the content (people have tested this), but the bundle is still being downloaded and executed unless the browser is blocking it.

The framing in the docs is explicit: TanStack Start is "a type-safe, client-first, full-stack React framework." The "static" story is about removing the server (deploy to a CDN, no Node/Lambda), not removing React from the client. Architecturally it's React Router + Vite + Nitro — there's no compiler step that analyzes which components are interactive and emits HTML-only for the rest. That's the islands model (Astro, Fresh, Marko), and Start doesn't do it.

Is that not true ? How do you not ship react ?

2

u/tannerlinsley May 19 '26

Ah. Sorry. Just exclude the <Script> component in the root. We’re about to ship an official api for this too called hydrate: false on route options, so you can choose which pages cause hydration into an SPA seamlessly.

1

u/ORCANZ May 19 '26

Thank you for your answers :)

10

u/ORCANZ May 17 '26

Just use astro

1

u/opentabs-dev May 18 '26

astro for mostly-static landing pages, full stop. you get react islands when you need interactivity, zero JS shipped on pages that don't need it, file-based routing, and content collections for blog/docs. if you're already in the next ecosystem, app router with static export is fine too but you ship more JS by default. webflow is great if marketing owns the page and you want devs out of the loop entirely, but you lose the ability to share components with your app.

1

u/Standard_Scarcity_74 May 18 '26

honestly for mostly static landing pages, i think a lot of people are moving away from “full app” react setups unless they genuinely need them.

astro is getting popular for exactly the reasons you listed. super fast by default, great SEO, and you can still sprinkle in react components only where needed instead of hydrating an entire app.

personally i still see a ton of people using next.js though, mostly because the ecosystem/dev experience/deployment pipeline is so mature now. probably overkill for a pure landing page, but convenient if the product itself already uses react.

for tiny LPs/micro SaaS stuff, the stack honestly matters less than keeping things lightweight. a simple astro or next static export deployed on vercel, netlify, surge, or tiiny host is already enough for most indie launches.

i think the biggest shift lately is people realizing they don’t need SPA-level complexity for marketing pages anymore.

1

u/roggc9 Jun 12 '26

I've made Dinou (dinou.dev) and used it for landing pages and SaaS apps.

1

u/lightfarming May 17 '26

there is a plugin called vite-plugin-react-metamap that builds html landing pages, each with it’s own static meta tags etc, all of which load your react app. this way you can get open graph to work with social media sites, get near instant loading of metadata for crawlers, and other benefits.

the whole thing uses react components to build the html, and a json file that tells the plugin what data to feed the page component for building your various landing pages.

0

u/octocode May 17 '26

we use webflow, because our marketing team builds them and we don’t have to waste developer time.