Next.js App Router vs Pages Router: Which One is Better?

 

The well-known React framework Next.js has transformed web development with its robust routing features. But now that Next.js 13 has introduced the App Router, developers must decide whether to continue using the outdated Pages Router or switch to the more recent App Router. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and the best option will rely on the complexity of your project, performance requirements, and development preferences.

To assist you in selecting the best router for your project, we'll dissect the main distinctions, applications, and trade-offs between the two in this tutorial.

What is the Pages Router?

The initial Next.js routing mechanism was called Pages Router. Using a file-based routing strategy, each file in the pages directory is turned into a route by default. For instance:

• pages/index.js → /
• pages/about.js → /about
• pages/blog/[slug].js → /blog/:slug (dynamic route)

The Pages Router is perfect for novices and projects with simple routing requirements because of its simplicity.

 What is the App Router?

 A more sophisticated routing mechanism made for contemporary online applications is the App Router, which was first included in Next.js 13. It offers capabilities like these and makes use of a directory called app.

 

• React Server Components: Improved performance by rendering components on the server.
• Streaming: Progressive loading of UI components.
• Nested Layouts: Easier management of complex UIs.

·        Enhanced Data Fetching: Built-in support for async components.

 

Vercel, the firm that created Next.js, suggests the App Router for new projects since it is the platform's future. It does, however, have some performance trade-offs and a longer learning curve.

 

Key Differences Between App Router and Pages Router

 1. Simplicity vs. Control

• Pages Router: Simple and intuitive. It’s perfect for static sites or apps with basic routing needs.
• App Router: Offers more control and flexibility, making it better suited for complex applications with dynamic routing, nested layouts, and advanced data fetching.

Example:

• In the Pages Router, a blog post route might look like pages/blog/[slug].js.
• In the App Router, the same route would be app/blog/[slug]/page.js, with support for nested layouts like app/blog/layout.js.

2. Convention vs. Configuration

• Pages Router: Relies on file-based conventions. Routes are automatically generated based on the file structure.
• App Router: Uses configuration-based routing, allowing developers to define routes programmatically.

Why It Matters:

• The Pages Router is easier for beginners but can become cumbersome in large projects.
• The App Router provides more flexibility but requires a deeper understanding of Next.js.

3. Learning Curve

• Pages Router: Beginner-friendly and widely documented. It’s a great starting point for developers new to Next.js.
• App Router: More complex, especially for those unfamiliar with React Server Components or streaming. However, it’s more familiar to developers with experience in other modern frameworks.

4. File Structure

• Pages Router:
• Routes are defined by files in the pages directory.
• Dynamic routes use square brackets (e.g., [slug].js).
• App Router:
• Routes are defined by folders in the app directory.
• Each route has a page.js file for the UI and optional files like layout.js or loading.js.

Example:

• Pages Router: pages/about.js → /about
• App Router: app/about/page.js → /about

5. Features

• Pages Router:
• Supports Static Site Generation (SSG) and Server-Side Rendering (SSR).
• Limited support for nested layouts.
• App Router:
• Introduces React Server Components and streaming.
• Supports nested layouts, error boundaries, and loading states out of the box.

6. Performance

• Pages Router:
• Generally faster for simple applications.
• Better for SEO and initial load performance due to its simplicity.
• App Router:
• Can be slower in terms of requests per second due to the overhead of server components and streaming.
• However, it offers better performance for complex apps with dynamic content.

Performance Trade-Off:

• The App Router’s advanced features come at a cost. For example, server-side rendering and streaming can increase response times compared to the Pages Router.

When to Use the App Router

1. routing makes it perfect for SPAs.
2. Complex Routing Needs: If your app requires advanced routing patterns, the App Router is the way to go.
3. Modern Features: Need React Server Components, streaming, or enhanced data fetching? The App Router has you covered.

Future-Proofing: As the recommended approach by Vercel, the App Router is the future of Next.js.

When to Use the Pages Router

The Pages Router is better suited for:

1. Static Sites: The Pages Router is simpler to set up if you're creating a straightforward static website.
2. Beginners: Its simplicity makes it a great choice for developers new to Next.js.
3. SEO-Centric Projects: The Pages Router’s straightforward structure can lead to better SEO and faster initial load times.
4. Legacy Projects: Migrating to the App Router can be time-consuming, so it’s often better to stick with the Pages Router for existing projects.

Developer Experiences and Opinions

The debate between the two routers is ongoing:

• App Router Fans: Many developers appreciate its flexibility and modern features. They find it easier to manage complex UIs and dynamic content.
• Pages Router Advocates: Some developers prefer the simplicity and stability of the Pages Router, especially for smaller projects.

Common Complaints:

• The App Router can feel unstable or unpredictable, especially in its early versions.
• Performance issues, such as slower response times, have been reported.

The Good News:

 The App Router has improved significantly since its release, and Vercel is actively addressing performance and stability concerns.

Migration Considerations

If you’re considering migrating from the Pages Router to the App Router, keep these points in mind:

1. Refactoring Effort: Migrating can require significant changes to your file structure and codebase.
2. Learning Curve: Your team will need to learn new concepts like React Server Components and streaming.
3. Performance Testing: Test thoroughly to ensure the App Router meets your performance requirements.

Final Thoughts: Which One is Better?

The choice between the App Router and Pages Router ultimately depends on your project’s needs:

• Choose the Pages Router if you’re building a simple static site, prioritizing SEO, or just starting with Next.js.
• Choose the App Router if you need advanced features, complex routing, or want to future-proof your project.

You can utilize both routers side by side in the same project, and each has a role in the Next.js ecosystem. For instance, you could utilize the App Router for your app's dynamic elements and the Pages Router for your static pages.

Conclusion

Both the Pages Router and the Next.js App Router are distinct routing strategies, each having advantages and disadvantages of its own. The App Router provides unmatched flexibility and cutting-edge functionality for sophisticated applications, while the Pages Router is more straightforward and efficient for simple use cases.
It is probable that the App Router will become the norm as Next.js develops further. The Pages Router is still a dependable option for easier projects, though. Knowing the distinctions and trade-offs can help you make an informed choice that complements the objectives of your project and the experience of your team.

#NextJS #ReactJS #WebDevelopment #AppRouter #PagesRouter #Frontend #JavaScript #Coding #ServerComponents #NextJSAppRouter #WebPerformance #FullStack #Developer #technologiesaiblogs