Astro 5 vs Hono + htmx
Real-world performance comparison based on identical SaaS dashboard implementations.
Performance Metrics
Lower is better for all metrics. Green indicates the faster framework.
| Metric | Astro 5 | Hono + htmx | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| TTFB (p50) | 23.15ms | 17.3ms | ▶ |
| TTFB (p95) | 26.11ms | 18.96ms | ▶ |
| LCP (p50) | 52ms | 48ms | ▶ |
| LCP (p95) | 58.2ms | 54.2ms | ▶ |
| CLS | 0 | 0 | = |
| TBT | 0 ms | 0 ms | = |
| LCP → TTFB | N/A | N/A | - |
| LCP → Load Delay | N/A | N/A | - |
| LCP → Load Duration | N/A | N/A | - |
| LCP → Render Delay | N/A | N/A | - |
| Performance Score | 100 | 99 | ◀ |
| SEO Score | 83 | 92 | ▶ |
| Accessibility Score | 80 | 79 | ◀ |
| Best Practices Score | 100 | 96 | ◀ |
LLM Understanding (Claude Opus 4.5)
How efficiently Claude Opus 4.5 understands the codebase. Based on exploration + validation tests.
| Metric | Astro 5 | Hono + htmx | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exploration Time | N/A | N/A | - |
| Exploration Tokens | N/A | N/A | - |
| Files Examined | N/A | N/A | - |
| Validation Accuracy | N/A | N/A | - |
| Time Per File | N/A | N/A | - |
| Tokens Per File | N/A | N/A | - |
| Efficiency Score | N/A | N/A | - |
LLM Understanding (Claude Haiku 4.5)
How efficiently Claude Haiku 4.5 understands the codebase. Based on exploration + validation tests.
| Metric | Astro 5 | Hono + htmx | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exploration Time | N/A | N/A | - |
| Exploration Tokens | N/A | N/A | - |
| Files Examined | N/A | N/A | - |
| Validation Accuracy | N/A | N/A | - |
| Time Per File | N/A | N/A | - |
| Tokens Per File | N/A | N/A | - |
| Efficiency Score | N/A | N/A | - |
Build Metrics
| Metric | Astro 5 | Hono + htmx | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bundle Size (JS) | 1153.3KB | 70.5KB | ▶ |
| Bundle Size (CSS) | 22.6KB | 0KB | ▶ |
| Build Time | 2.8s | 0.4s | ▶ |
| Dependencies | 18 | 9 | ▶ |
Want to see more framework comparisons?
View All Comparisons