Both of these frameworks have grown in popularity over the years for their speedy delivery in the development of powerful web applications. In this article we would be looking at the strength and weaknesses of both frameworks and we would be performing a detailed comparison between the two of them.

We will compare them in the following areas:

• Architecture

• Documentation & Ecosystem

• Performance

• Structure

Architecture

cc:Construction cartoon illustration 478858 Vector Art at Vecteezy

The architecture of a framework entails the internal structure of the framework and how it provides functionalities for developers to leverage on. In simpler terms the architecture of a framework is the structure on which projects built with the framework are built on

Laravel follows the MVC (Model-View-Controller) architecture, providing a structured approach to application development. It’s well-suited for projects of varying complexities.

While Next.js on the other hand works with a component-driven architecture. It introduces the concept of pages, making it favourable for modern, client-side rendered applications and static pages.

Which Architecture Is Better?

This question is best answered on the context of use cases, MVC does better in building projects with a lot of logic and varying complexity while the Component-driven architecture shines in small scale and client-side rendered applications. The answer to the question "which architecture is better" depends on the nature of the project.

Documentation & Ecosystem

The documentation and overall ecosystem (tools, integrations, community, etc.) of a framework are crucial for the developer experience. Developer experience is often overlooked in technology. It impacts the productivity of all developers using that technology, including languages, frameworks, tools, and infrastructure. We won't focus much on Developer Experience here; we'll cover it in a future article titled "Developer Experience: The Neglected Facet."

Documentation

The Next.js documentation is very robust and detailed. It offers comprehensive information on how the framework operates, using detailed step-by-step learning methods. Next.js provides a clear roadmap in its documentation that shows new users a clear path to follow for efficient usage of the framework.

Meanwhile, Laravel's docs are more practical in structure, with thousands of live examples scattered all over the docs. Most of these examples have concise details.

Now I'll give Next.js the win in Documentation, due to the fact that its information is more digestible, and beginner friendly compared to Laravel.

Ecosystem

When I talk about Ecosystem in context of frameworks, I am simply talking about all the tools, libraries, technologies centred around the framework. Especially the ones that their sole purpose of existing is to work with the framework or aid the framework one way or the other e.g Redux to React, Livewire to Laravel etc.

19 Laravel Ecosystem

Laravel has a very large ecosystem centred around it. It almost feels like the entire PHP world revolves around Laravel. This is because Laravel's ecosystem has significantly contributed to the development of new libraries, frameworks and technologies in PHP.

While Laravel boasts a vast ecosystem specific to PHP, Next.js leverages the extensive React ecosystem, offering a wide of possibilities.

Next.js builds upon React, which has a massive and active developer community. This translates to a vast array of libraries and tools readily available for various functionalities within your Next.js application. You can find solutions for state management (Redux, MobX), routing (React Router), UI components (Material UI, Ant Design), data fetching (Apollo Client), testing (Jest, React Testing Library), and much more.

Laravel's ecosystem is more independent and self-sufficient than the Next.js ecosystem that draws most of its strength from the React(JavaScript) developer community.

Performance

I've built applications with both Laravel and Next.js, and here is how I would compare their performance. I broke their performance into three categories:

• Server-Side Rendering: Laravel tends to be faster for initial page loads, especially when caching optimizations are implemented. However, subsequent user interactions can lead to performance drops due to additional server requests.

• Static Rendering and ISR: Next.js excels in rendering static pages and with Incremental Static Regeneration (ISR). Laravel can't compete in this area. However, performance can dip after heavy JavaScript interactions.

• Application Complexity: For complex applications with frequent database interactions, Laravel is the better choice. For simple, lightweight applications, both frameworks perform well. Next.js can also handle complex applications with proper optimization.

  The best approach might be to leverage Next.js for the front-end with its fast rendering and Laravel for the back-end API to manage complex server-side logic.

  Performance-wise, it's not necessarily a tie. The best framework depends on your project's specific needs.

Structure

When it comes to Structure it entails a lot of things, from Folder structure to Frontend and Backend structure of both frameworks. So, we are going to be looking at each structure one after the other.

Folder Structure

When it comes to Folder structure, Laravel tends to have a more protracted folder structure

In contrast to Next.js which has a more concise and modest folder structure.

Both folder structures are designed based on the architectures the frameworks are built on. So, saying that one folder structure is better than the other is more a matter of preference.

Laravel's detailed folder structure comes with many features that most web applications need, whereas Next.js's simple folder structure includes minimal features, making it ideal for projects like websites and landing pages. When comparing both folder structures, consider the trade-offs between both folder structures.

Frontend Structure

The frontend structure entails the behaviours, organizations and patterns that the user interfaces built with the frameworks have and follow.

Laravel uses a templating engine called Blade by default for its interfaces, Blade uses a HTML-like syntax to create sleek user interfaces that mostly implements server-side logic. Yes, Laravel's frontend uses server-side rendering by default.

In Laravel by default pages are rendered from the server but with Inertia (Laravel's Client-Side Library) pages can be rendered from the client's side for better interactivity and faster page loads. Using client-side rendering

Next.js on the other hand is built on top of React, so by default it uses client-side rendering to render React components as interactivity user interfaces. Next.js also enables server-side rendering but its server-side rendering (SSR) is more complex to implement and use. Next.js's SSR renders pages that load faster and are more interactive than that of Laravel.

Generally, Next.js is more frontend and design-oriented and it is more suited for applications that require high interactivity and responsivity from its users. Laravel on the other hand is more backend heavy and logic-oriented, it is more suited for complex applications that requires more logic, heavy-content and database operations.

These are the things you consider before choosing any of the frameworks for your next project.

Also, note that both frameworks are constantly evolving and the line between "backend" and "frontend" is constantly blurring. Both Laravel and Next.js can handle complex logic and user interactions to some extent, so it's important to stay updated on their latest features.

Backend Structure

The backend structure in context to this comparison entails all the features and logic required for the functionality of the framework's projects. Features such Authentication, Databases, Routing and Security. We are going to be looking at each of these features detailly one after the other.

Routing

Laravel generally uses resource-based routing, which is simply a concise way to define routes for common CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) operations on a resource (like users).

While Next.js on the other hand uses File-based routing by default, which is simply leveraging on the file structure of your project to define page routes.

Next.js have routing libraries like next-routes and react-router-dom for more complex routing needs.

Which is better?

For large-scale, multi-layered, and complex applications with thousands of routes, Next.js's approach to routing can be more stressful and cumbersome to implement. However, it does offer benefits, such as a well-structured and organized codebase. Laravel's routing is better suited for complex and multi-layered applications because it is simpler to implement and promotes code efficiency.

So, the answer to this question depends on the project's nature and requirements.

Authentication

Laravel offers built-in authentication for user registrations, logins, password resets, email verification, and authorization checks, which are very easy to set up in your Laravel application. Laravel also has a vast ecosystem that provides additional packages for more advanced authentication needs, such as social logins or multi-factor authentication, and all of these are very easy to set up.

Next.js, on the other hand, does not have built-in authentication. However, it allows you to integrate various popular authentication providers like NextAuth, a well-known library for adding authentication to Next.js applications. It supports providers like Google, GitHub, and email/password logins. Next.js also encourages you to create custom authentication solutions for your applications.

It's clear that Laravel's ecosystem is more robust when it comes to authentication, making Laravel the winner in this area.

Database

Laravel offers a built-in object relational mapper (ORM) named Eloquent which simplifies database operations and abstracts database queries. An ORM is an interface that adds an object-oriented layer of abstraction over databases, especially relational databases.

What is Object Relational Mapping?

Laravel also offers database drivers that support relational database systems such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and many others. These drivers also provide features like security from attacks such as SQL injections.

From its structure, it seems that Laravel leans more towards relational databases.

Next.js, on the other hand, has no built-in ORM but allows you to integrate other popular ORMs for database operations, such as Prisma, TypeORM, and MicroOrm.

Next.js leans more towards non-relational databases but is very flexible with database operations and systems.

There are many other areas where both frameworks can be compared in regard to Backend structure, areas like Apis, Caching, Application security (Middlewares,Gates)

Conclusion: Choosing the Right Tool for the Job

Both Laravel and Next.js are powerful frameworks that can help you build robust web applications. The best choice for your project depends on several factors, including:

• Project Complexity: For complex applications with heavy database interactions and logic, Laravel's MVC architecture and built-in features might be a better fit.

• Performance Needs: If initial page load speed and static content delivery are crucial, Next.js with its focus on static rendering and Incremental Static Regeneration (ISR) could be advantageous.

• Developer Experience: Consider your team's familiarity with PHP (Laravel) or JavaScript (Next.js) for backend development.

• Project Requirements: If user interactivity and a dynamic frontend are priorities, Next.js' component-driven architecture and React foundation could be ideal.

Here's a quick summary of the key strengths of each framework:

• Laravel:

  • Excellent for complex applications with heavy database interactions.

  • Well-suited for projects requiring a quick start with established features and a vast ecosystem.

  • Offers built-in authentication and security features.

  • Uses a familiar MVC architecture and templating engine (Blade) for server-side rendering.

• Next.js:

  • Ideal for modern, client-side rendered applications and static pages.

  • Excels in performance with static rendering and ISR for fast initial page loads.

  • Highly scalable for simple and large-scale applications with proper optimization.

  • Leverages the extensive React ecosystem for UI components, state management, and more.

  • Offers flexibility in backend solutions with the ability to integrate various ORMs and build custom APIs.

Remember, these frameworks are constantly evolving, blurring the lines between "backend" and "frontend" functionalities. It's essential to stay updated on their latest features and choose the one that best aligns with your project's specific needs and your development team's expertise.

Thanks for reading 😁