SSR vs CSR for AI crawlability - we switched and saw 2x improvement in AI citations. Here's the data

I’ve worked on crawler infrastructure. Let me explain why this happens.

How different crawlers handle JavaScript:

Why AI bots often skip JS:

1. Scale - Rendering billions of pages is expensive
2. Speed - JS adds latency
3. Reliability - JS can break, timeouts happen
4. Simplicity - HTML-first is easier

The practical implication:

If your content requires JavaScript to display, AI training data might not include it. Your content literally doesn’t exist in their models.

SSR solves this completely.

HTML in response = guaranteed accessibility.

Static site generation (SSG) is even better for AI visibility.

Why SSG wins:

• 100% of content is HTML
• No server-side rendering needed
• Blazing fast load times
• Perfect cacheability
• Maximum crawler accessibility

What we use:

• Hugo for marketing site (5,000 pages)
• Pre-built at deploy time
• CDN-distributed globally

AI crawlability: 100%

Every page is pure HTML. Every AI bot can access everything.

The trade-off:

SSG works for content that doesn’t change per-request. For dynamic content (user dashboards, personalization), you need SSR or hybrid.

Our recommendation:

• Marketing content → SSG
• Blog/docs → SSG
• E-commerce → SSR
• Apps → Hybrid (SSR critical content, CSR interactions)

Choose the right tool for each content type.

Performance angle on SSR for AI:

Core Web Vitals improvement:

SSR typically improves:

• LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) - Content visible faster
• FID/INP - Less JS blocking main thread
• CLS - Layout more stable

Why this matters for AI:

1. Google uses CWV as ranking factor
2. Better UX signals = more authority
3. Faster pages = better crawler experience

Our client data:

The AI visibility correlation:

Sites with better CWV tend to have better AI citations. Likely because:

• Same content quality signals
• Better crawl experience
• Higher overall authority

SSR is a win-win: better performance AND better AI accessibility.

Enterprise perspective on rendering architecture:

The complexity:

Large sites have mixed requirements:

• Marketing pages (content-focused)
• Product catalog (dynamic data)
• User accounts (personalized)
• Documentation (reference content)

Our hybrid approach:

Page Type          → Rendering Strategy
Marketing          → SSG (build-time)
Blog/Docs          → ISR (incremental static)
Product pages      → SSR (dynamic data)
User dashboard     → CSR (authenticated)

Implementation with Next.js:

// Marketing - getStaticProps (SSG)
// Products - getServerSideProps (SSR)
// Dashboard - client-side only

AI visibility by section:

The key insight:

Match rendering strategy to content purpose. Not everything needs SSR, but critical content does.

How to audit your rendering for AI:

Quick test:

1. Disable JavaScript in browser
2. Load your page
3. Can you see the content?

If no → AI bots might not see it either.

Technical audit:

curl -A "custom-bot" https://yoursite.com/page | grep "your content"

If content not in response → problem.

Tools:

• Chrome DevTools → Disable JS
• Google Search Console → URL Inspection
• Screaming Frog → JavaScript rendering mode
• Am I Cited → AI visibility correlation

The pattern we see:

Sites with CSR often have:

• Good Google rankings (renders JS)
• Poor Bing rankings (JS support varies)
• Poor AI citations (bots don’t render)

If your Google rankings don’t match your AI visibility, rendering might be the issue.

Framework recommendations for AI-friendly rendering:

Best choices for SSR:

For static sites:

Migration path recommendations:

From React SPA → Next.js (easiest migration) From Vue SPA → Nuxt (easiest migration) From scratch → Astro (most flexible) Content-heavy → Hugo or 11ty (fastest builds)

The common mistake:

Don’t just add pre-rendering as afterthought. Design content architecture for SSR from the start.

Great discussion. Here’s my summary:

The Rendering Decision Framework:

For AI visibility, you need HTML content accessible without JavaScript.

Options ranked by AI accessibility:

1. SSG (Static Site Generation) - Best. 100% HTML at build time.
2. SSR (Server-Side Rendering) - Excellent. HTML generated per request.
3. ISR (Incremental Static Regeneration) - Great. Hybrid approach.
4. Dynamic Rendering - Good. SSR for bots, CSR for users.
5. CSR with Pre-rendering - Okay. Requires configuration.
6. Pure CSR - Poor. Many AI bots can’t access content.

Migration priorities:

1. Content pages (blog, docs, marketing) - Highest priority
2. Product/service pages - High priority
3. Category/listing pages - Medium priority
4. User-specific pages - N/A (not for AI anyway)

Technical checklist:

• Content visible with JS disabled
• curl response contains content
• Crawl tools show full content
• Am I Cited shows AI visibility
• No hydration mismatches

Our 2x improvement was from one change: Making content accessible in HTML response instead of requiring JavaScript.

If you’re not getting AI citations despite good content, check your rendering.

Thanks everyone for the technical insights!