Astro comes up often in Framer migration conversations because its whole design philosophy — ship close to zero JavaScript by default — is the direct answer to Framer's biggest performance criticism: a heavy runtime shipped to every visitor.
Why Astro specifically fits this use case
Most marketing sites, portfolios, and content sites built in Framer are mostly static — text, images, layout, maybe a few scroll animations. They don't need a full client-side JavaScript framework running on every page load. Astro's "islands" architecture ships plain HTML/CSS by default and only sends JavaScript for the specific interactive pieces that actually need it. For a Framer site whose interactivity is mostly appear/scroll animations (which can be reproduced with lightweight CSS + IntersectionObserver, no framework required), that's a strong architectural match.
Astro vs a Next.js export for this use case
Both are legitimate landing spots for an exported Framer site, and the right choice depends on what you're optimizing for:
- Astro wins on raw performance for content-heavy, low-interactivity sites — less JS shipped by default means faster Time to Interactive almost automatically.
- Next.js wins if you want a broader ecosystem, more first-party integration with things like Vercel's platform features, or you anticipate the site growing more interactive/app-like over time (Astro can do interactivity too, but Next.js's model is more naturally suited to it).
For a typical marketing site with scroll animations and not much else, Astro's performance ceiling is genuinely higher. For a site that might grow real app-like features later, Next.js avoids a second migration.
What the actual migration involves
There's no automated "Framer to Astro" converter in wide use the way there are Framer-to-HTML and Framer-to-Next.js tools — because Astro's component model (.astro files) is different enough from either raw HTML or JSX that a direct 1:1 conversion isn't as mechanical. The practical path is usually: export to clean static HTML first (stripping Framer's runtime, self-hosting assets), then restructure that HTML into Astro components and pages — meaningfully more manual work than a Next.js export, but landing you on the leanest possible output.
The honest recommendation
If raw performance is your single top priority and you're comfortable with some manual restructuring work, Astro is worth it. If you want the fastest path from "published on Framer" to "deployed somewhere I control" with the least manual effort, a direct Next.js or static HTML export gets you there today without the extra restructuring step.