Aggregate AI readiness comparison across 56362 production sites. This compares all sites built on each framework, not the framework websites themselves.
Gatsby Next.js
Across 56362 crawled sites, Gatsby outperforms Next.js in aggregate AI visibility—winning 7 of 8 metrics in this architectural benchmark. Gatsby delivers a 24% leaner Token Bloat ratio (235.7× vs 308.4×), meaning AI systems can extract content more cost-effectively from Gatsby-powered sites. On schema coverage, Gatsby averages 1.7 structured data types per site vs 1.1 for Next.js—1.5× more out-of-the-box schema markup. Note: These are aggregate statistics across 4060 Gatsby and 52302 Next.js production deployments. Your specific implementation may differ—run a free scan to check.
| Metric | Gatsby (n=4060) | Next.js (n=52302) | Δ% | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACRI Score | 44.0WIN | 42.0 | 5% | Gatsby |
| AI Readiness | 61.6WIN | 60.0 | 3% | Gatsby |
| Token Bloat | 235.7×WIN | 308.4× | 24% | Gatsby |
| Ghost Ratio | 6%WIN | 6% | 3% | Gatsby |
| Schema Coverage | 1.7WIN | 1.1 | 35% | Gatsby |
| Schema Adoption | 34%WIN | 32% | 6% | Gatsby |
| GPTBot Access | 94% | 94% | 0% | TIE |
| Structure Score | 6.6WIN | 6.5 | 1% | Gatsby |
These are aggregate stats across thousands of sites. Your specific Gatsby or Next.js implementation may outperform or underperform the average.