Aggregate AI readiness comparison across 5284 production sites. This compares all sites built on each framework, not the framework websites themselves.
Astro Gatsby
In this architectural benchmark of Astro vs Gatsby (based on 5284 sites), both frameworks show remarkably similar AI readiness profiles. Astro delivers a 80% leaner Token Bloat ratio (47.8× vs 235.2×), meaning AI systems can extract content more cost-effectively from Astro-powered sites. On schema coverage, Gatsby averages 1.7 structured data types per site vs 0.9 for Astro—1.9× more out-of-the-box schema markup. Note: These are aggregate statistics across 1217 Astro and 4067 Gatsby production deployments. Your specific implementation may differ—run a free scan to check.
| Metric | Astro (n=1217) | Gatsby (n=4067) | Δ% | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACRI Score | 43.6 | 44.0 | 1% | TIE |
| AI Readiness | 69.0WIN | 61.6 | 11% | Astro |
| Token Bloat | 47.8×WIN | 235.2× | 80% | Astro |
| Ghost Ratio | 5%WIN | 6% | 7% | Astro |
| Schema Coverage | 0.9 | 1.7WIN | 47% | Gatsby |
| Schema Adoption | 30% | 34%WIN | 12% | Gatsby |
| GPTBot Access | 93% | 94% | 1% | TIE |
| Structure Score | 6.6 | 6.7WIN | 1% | Gatsby |
These are aggregate stats across thousands of sites. Your specific Astro or Gatsby implementation may outperform or underperform the average.