The short answer
If your estate is built on Next.js, choose Vercel — the first-party integration removes a category of operational risk that Netlify’s adapter-based support can’t fully match. If you run a multi-framework or static-first estate and value built-in platform features (forms, redirects, edge functions across frameworks), Netlify is the more even-handed home. Both invented and then refined the same core workflow — Git push, immutable deploy, preview URL — so for many teams the honest tie-breakers are the framework and the bill shape, not the feature grid.
Where they differ
| Vercel | Netlify | |
|---|---|---|
| Framework support | First-party Next.js — ISR, RSC, image optimisation on day one of each release; strong support for Astro, Nuxt, SvelteKit | Deliberately framework-neutral; Next.js runs through Netlify's own runtime, which has historically trailed new Next.js releases |
| Preview workflow | Preview deployment per branch/PR, with commenting and review tooling built around it | Deploy previews per branch/PR — Netlify pioneered the pattern; collaboration tooling is comparable |
| Compute | Fluid Compute — serverless and edge unified, scales to zero, usage-billed | Serverless functions plus edge functions; background functions for longer-running work |
| Platform extras | Focused platform: delivery, compute, analytics, spend management | Broader toolkit: forms, redirects engine, split testing, identity — useful, but the deeper ones couple you to the platform |
| Pricing shape | Pro combines developer-seat pricing with metered bandwidth, image optimisation, and compute | Credit-based Pro tiers plus metered usage; unlimited team members are included on current credit-based Pro plans |
| Pay per user | Yes for developers. Pro is $20 per developer per month; viewer seats are unlimited and free | No on current credit-based Pro plans. Team member seats are unlimited and included; legacy Pro still charges per member |
| Governance & compliance | Enterprise tier: SOC 2, SSO/SAML, audit logs, EU regions, contractual SLAs | Enterprise tier: SSO/SAML, audit logs, SLAs, dedicated support — both clear serious procurement |
| Lock-in & portability | Standard framework code ports; platform-specific config (vercel.json, image/ISR behaviour) needs rework | Same story — plus platform-coupled features like Forms and Identity need replacing, not porting |
Global CDN Performance
Response times measured from 15 global locations for static content delivery (HTML, images, and other assets). These measurements reflect how quickly content reaches users through each provider's CDN.
| Location |  Netlify |  Vercel | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTFB | Total Load Time | TTFB | Total Load Time | |
 us-west-1 | 113ms | 141ms | 53ms | 59ms |
| us-east-1 | 183ms | 195ms | 29ms | 40ms |
 ca-central-1 | 148ms | 177ms | 31ms | 33ms |
 sa-east-1 | 12ms | 21ms | 34ms | 43ms |
 eu-central-1 | 127ms | 136ms | 27ms | 33ms |
 eu-west-2 | 44ms | 67ms | 30ms | 39ms |
 eu-west-3 | 31ms | 52ms | 27ms | 31ms |
 eu-north-1 | 277ms | 325ms | 40ms | 45ms |
 eu-south-1 | 157ms | 200ms | 52ms | 54ms |
 af-south-1 | 1003ms | 1369ms | 26ms | 29ms |
 ap-southeast-1 | 96ms | 103ms | 29ms | 32ms |
 ap-northeast-1 | 210ms | 282ms | 34ms | 38ms |
 ap-east-1 | 106ms | 155ms | 28ms | 31ms |
 ap-southeast-2 | 144ms | 148ms | 29ms | 32ms |
 ap-northeast-2 | 351ms | 482ms | 32ms | 35ms |
What the measurements show
In this 9 August 2026 snapshot, Vercel recorded the lower median CDN TTFB across the 15 monitored locations: 30ms versus 144ms for Netlify. It returned the faster TTFB in 14 of 15 locations; median total load time was 35ms versus 155ms.
Method: Checkly requests the test endpoints from 15 locations every 60 minutes; the table reports averages from recent checks. Lower is better. These results describe the monitored endpoints, not every project or workload—application code, cache state, region configuration, and traffic patterns can change production performance.
Serverless Node.js Function Performance
Serverless Functions (Node) timings measure the performance of backend operations executed in serverless environments.
Note
We test endpoints every 60 minutes, so these measurements predominantly capture cold-start performance. This represents a worst-case scenario; production applications with more frequent requests often keep functions warm.
| Location | Netlify | Vercel | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TTFB | E2E Latency | TTFB | E2E Latency | |
| us-west-1 | 831ms | 873ms | 44ms | 56ms |
| us-east-1 | 850ms | 864ms | 22ms | 33ms |
| ca-central-1 | 846ms | 873ms | 15ms | 16ms |
| sa-east-1 | 992ms | 1002ms | 22ms | 28ms |
| eu-central-1 | 997ms | 1006ms | 17ms | 22ms |
| eu-west-2 | 1024ms | 1047ms | 17ms | 29ms |
| eu-west-3 | 1020ms | 1043ms | 16ms | 18ms |
| eu-north-1 | 963ms | 1011ms | 29ms | 33ms |
| eu-south-1 | 957ms | 987ms | 45ms | 48ms |
| af-south-1 | 1381ms | 1780ms | 16ms | 18ms |
| ap-southeast-1 | 1244ms | 1251ms | 17ms | 21ms |
| ap-northeast-1 | 1184ms | 1258ms | 22ms | 26ms |
| ap-east-1 | 1140ms | 1196ms | 15ms | 17ms |
| ap-southeast-2 | 1006ms | 1011ms | 15ms | 18ms |
| ap-northeast-2 | 1087ms | 1188ms | 32ms | 35ms |
What the measurements show
For the hourly, cold-start-oriented Node.js checks in this 9 August 2026 snapshot, Vercel recorded the lower median TTFB across the 15 monitored locations: 17ms versus 1006ms for Netlify. It returned the faster TTFB in 15 of 15 locations; median end-to-end latency was 26ms versus 1011ms.
Method: Checkly requests the test endpoints from 15 locations every 60 minutes; the table reports averages from recent checks. Lower is better. These results describe the monitored endpoints, not every project or workload—application code, cache state, region configuration, and traffic patterns can change production performance.
Choose Vercel when
- The estate is Next.js and you want framework features working as designed the day they ship.
- Marketing velocity is the goal: many contributors, frequent campaign pages, preview-driven stakeholder sign-off.
- Your developer team is small enough that seat pricing does not outweigh the value of first-party Next.js support.
Choose Netlify when
- Your estate spans multiple frameworks and you want one platform treating them all as first-class.
- You’ll actually use the built-in platform features — forms, redirects at scale, split testing — instead of assembling them.
- Many developers, publishers, and Git contributors need access, and you do not want each one to add another seat charge.
If you’re switching
Moving between Vercel and Netlify is one of the easier platform migrations — the Git-connected deploy model is the same on both sides — but it is not a checkbox. Plan for: redirect parity (both have their own redirect syntax, and a content-heavy site typically carries hundreds of rules), rebuilding platform-coupled features (Netlify Forms and Identity have no direct Vercel equivalent; Vercel’s image optimisation and ISR behave differently on Netlify’s runtime), re-testing framework-specific rendering paths, and re-modelling the bill under the other platform’s pricing shape before you commit. Coming onto either from legacy infrastructure, the same controls apply plus content and SEO continuity — redirects mapped, analytics preserved, editorial workflows retrained.
The Bejamas take
We deploy to both, and we recommend by estate, not by loyalty. In practice: Next.js estates go to Vercel, and the case for Netlify is strongest on multi-framework or static-first estates that will genuinely use its platform features. If neither premium is worth it at your scale, self-hosting is a real option too. In an audit we model your traffic, workflow, and compliance requirements against both platforms — and against your own cloud — and recommend the one the numbers support.