Litro
Compare Litro
See how Litro stacks up against the most popular fullstack frameworks. Feature-by-feature comparisons, real benchmarks, and migration guides.
Performance at a Glance
Identical minimal apps (2 routes, same content) built in SSG mode.
Build Time
Output Size
Avg Page Weight
Framework Comparisons
Litro vs Next.js ->
React's dominant fullstack framework. Compare component models, routing, SSR strategies, and bundle sizes.
Litro vs Nuxt ->
Vue's fullstack framework, also powered by Nitro. Compare the shared server engine with different component models.
Litro vs Enhance ->
Another web-components-first framework. Compare approaches to SSR, routing, and progressive enhancement.
Benchmark Overview
| Framework | Version | Build Time | Output Size | Relative Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| litro | 0.8.1 | 1.20s | 35.3 KB | |
| nuxt | 3.21.2 | 1.91s | 200.1 KB | |
| nextjs | 14.2.35 | 4.80s | 702.8 KB |
Realistic App Benchmark
Five identical Hacker News clones (~100 pages, SSG). Three Litro adapters (Lit, FAST, Elena) vs Next.js and Nuxt.
Build Time
Output Size
Avg Page Weight
* FAST's prerender engine does not evaluate :innerHTML bindings — output size excludes comment tree HTML. See SSR output fidelity.
† Next.js output includes RSC payload files (.txt) alongside HTML, inflating total on-disk size.
‡ Nuxt produces the smallest page weight because it does not duplicate data for hydration. Litro and Next.js inline serialized data alongside rendered HTML for client hydration; Nuxt prerenders the HTML and ships only a minimal metadata stub, relying on the server-rendered markup without client re-rendering.
These benchmarks measure static prerendering (SSG) only. Per-request SSR benchmarks are planned for a future update.
Full benchmark methodology, SSG vs SSR internals, and raw data ->