Laboratory Web Performance Benchmarking of React.js, SvelteKit, and Nuxt.js SPA/MPA Implementations on an Academic Conference Website

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63158/journalisi.v8i5.1757

Keywords:

Core Web Vitals, SvelteKit, Single Page Application, Multi-Page Application, Serverless Cold-Start

Abstract

Framework and architecture choices can determine whether academic conference systems remain discoverable, responsive, and accessible for bandwidth-diverse users. This study identifies the framework-architecture combination best suited for comparable deployments. It benchmarks laboratory Core Web Vitals-aligned metrics across six implementations of React.js, SvelteKit, and Nuxt.js, deployed as Single- and Multi-Page Application (SPA/MPA) variants reconstructed from the ICONBIT UNESA conference website. Because Interaction to Next Paint (INP) requires field data unavailable on these low-traffic subdomains, Total Blocking Time (TBT) was adopted as a laboratory proxy for interactivity. Lighthouse, PageSpeed Insights, and JMeter measurements were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn-Bonferroni tests, showing significant differences across all five metrics (p < 0.001). SvelteKit achieved the lowest Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) (mean 1.606–1.617 s) with zero TBT for its SSR-MPA variant, but SSR-based MPA deployments showed mobile cold-start penalties (mean LCP 17–18 s), while Nuxt SPA showed weak Slow 4G interactivity (TBT 554 ms). SvelteKit SSR-MPA is recommended only when this risk is mitigated through pre-warming or provisioned compute, with SvelteKit SPA as the safer static alternative otherwise. Findings are bounded by the single reconstructed website and Netlify free-tier environment evaluated.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] R. R. Gaddam, “Optimizing Core Web Vitals: A comprehensive framework for enhanced digital performance,” Sarcouncil J. Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 704–711, 2025, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15969506.

[2] K. Kowalczyk and T. Szandala, “Enhancing SEO in single-page web applications in contrast with multi-page applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 11597–11614, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3355740.

[3] D. Klochkov and J. Mulawka, “Improving Ruby on Rails-based web application performance,” Information, vol. 12, no. 8, p. 319, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.3390/info12080319.

[4] T. F. Iskandar, M. Lubis, T. F. Kusumasari, and A. R. Lubis, “Comparison between client-side and server-side rendering in the web development,” in IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 801, Institute of Physics Publishing, Jun. 2020, p. 012136. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/801/1/012136.

[5] M. Savenko and K. Babii, “Performance optimization strategies for large-scale web applications using Next.Js,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 217376–217386, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3647563.

[6] V. Komperla, P. Deenadhayalan, P. Ghuli, and R. Pattar, “React: A detailed survey,” Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1710–1717, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v26.i3.pp1710-1717.

[7] F. P. E. Putra, Hasbullah, F. Muslim, and R. Paradina, “Technical performance comparison of modern frontend frameworks study on Svelte, React, and Vue,” Brilliance: Res. Artif. Intell., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 355–364, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.47709/brilliance.v5i1.6133.

[8] R. Ollila, N. Mäkitalo, and T. Mikkonen, “Modern web frameworks: A comparison of rendering performance,” J. Web Eng., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 789–814, 2022, doi: 10.13052/jwe1540-9589.21311.

[9] A. J. Zaidan and D. F. Suyatno, “Rendering performance analysis of Astro JS, Next JS, Nuxt JS, and SvelteKit frameworks using Google Lighthouse, PageSpeed Insight, and JMeter,” Journal of Emerging Information System and Business Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2025, doi: 10.26740/jeisbi.v6i1.64283.

[10] M. Ghattas, S. Odeh, and A. M. Mora, “Predicting website performance: A systematic review of metrics, methods, and research gaps (2010–2024),” Computers, vol. 14, no. 10, p. 446, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.3390/computers14100446.

[11] M. Siahaan and R. Kenidy, “Rendering performance comparison of React, Vue, Next, and Nuxt,” Jurnal Mantik, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1851–1860, 2023, doi: 10.35335/mantik.v7i3.4242.

[12] M. Al Khuwaitem and L. Hasan, “Clustering university websites based on usability metrics: Insights from web vitals analysis,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 13, p. 102608, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102608.

[13] M. Golec, G. K. Walia, M. Kumar, F. Cuadrado, S. S. Gill, and S. Uhlig, “Cold start latency in serverless computing: A systematic review, taxonomy, and future directions,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 57, no. 3, p. 65, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1145/3700875.

[14] J. Vepsäläinen, A. Hellas, and P. Vuorimaa, “Implications of edge computing for static site generation,” in Int. Conf. Web Inf. Syst. Technol. (WEBIST), Science and Technology Publications, Lda, 2023, pp. 223–231. doi: 10.5220/0012173900003584.

[15] V. Jain, “Web Vitals and core metrics for web performance optimization,” Int. J. Core Eng. Manag., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 198–205, 2023, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14915137.

[16] P. Podhorský, V. Kunštnár, and K. Jelemenská, “Architectural possibilities of application development in the environment of web technologies,” in 2025 5th Int. Conf. Electr., Comput., Commun. Mechatronics Eng., 2025, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICECCME64568.2025.11277664.

[17] Indrianto, “Performance testing on web information system using Apache JMeter and Blazemeter,” Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 138–149, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.22437/jiituj.v7i2.28440.

[18] A. R. Annisa, M. Ardiana, P. N. Rahayu, T. Brian, and M. A. Jami’in, “Performance evaluation of web applications using JMeter load testing for server capacity and response efficiency,” J. Appl. Informat. Comput., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 585–590, 2026, doi: 10.30871/jaic.v10i1.11840.

[19] T. Heričko, B. Šumak, and S. Brdnik, “Towards representative web performance measurements with Google Lighthouse,” in Proc. 2021 7th Student Comput. Sci. Res. Conf. (StuCoSReC), University of Maribor Press, Sep. 2021, pp. 39–42. doi: 10.18690/978-961-286-516-0.9.

[20] A. C. Macunluoğlu and G. Ocakoğlu, “Comparison of the performances of non-parametric k-sample test procedures as an alternative to one-way analysis of variance,” Eur. Res. J., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 687–696, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.18621/eurj.1037546.

[21] F. Fiel Peres, “Effect sizes for nonparametric tests,” Biochem. Med. (Zagreb), vol. 36, no. 1, p. 010101, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.11613/BM.2026.010101.

[22] U. Singh, J. D. Venkatesh, A. Muraleedharan, K. S. Saluja, J. H. Anamika, and P. Biswas, “Accessibility analysis of educational websites using WCAG 2.0,” Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract., vol. 5, no. 3, p. 32, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1145/3696318.

[23] I. Malavolta, K. Chinnappan, L. Jasmontas, S. Gupta, and K. A. K. Soltany, “Evaluating the impact of caching on the energy consumption and performance of progressive web apps,” in 2020 IEEE/ACM 7th Int. Conf. Mobile Softw. Eng. Syst., Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, Jul. 2020, pp. 109–119. doi: 10.1145/3387905.3388593.

[24] S. S. Raweyai and I. R. Widiasari, “Performance testing of academic website using load testing method supported by Apache JMeterTM at XYZ University,” Jurnal Teknik Informatika (Jutif), vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 721–730, May 2024, doi: 10.52436/1.jutif.2024.5.3.1796.

[25] H. O. Ekpobimi, R. C. Kandekere, and A. A. Fasanmade, “Conceptual framework for enhancing front-end web performance: Strategies and best practices,” Glob. J. Adv. Res. Rev., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 099–107, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.58175/gjarr.2024.2.1.0032.

Downloads

Published

2026-10-24

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 5 (2026): October

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Information Systems and Informatics

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author's Declaration

  1. The Authors certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) submission guidelines, policies, and submission declaration. The submission has been prepared using the provided template.
  2. The Authors certify that all authors have approved the publication of this manuscript and that there is no conflict of interest.
  3. The Authors confirm that the manuscript is their original work, has not received prior publication, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and has not been previously published.
  4. The Authors confirm that all authors listed on the title page have contributed significantly to the work, have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission.
  5. The Authors confirm that the manuscript is not copied from or plagiarized from any other published work.
  6. The Authors declare that the manuscript will not be submitted for publication in any other journal or magazine until a decision is made by the journal editors.
  7. If the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Authors confirm that they will either proceed with publication immediately or withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policies.
  8. The Authors agree that, upon publication of the manuscript in this journal, they transfer copyright or assign exclusive rights to the publisher, including commercial rights

How to Cite

[1]
M. A. Fadhil, R. Dhenabayu, H. K. Hadi, and T. H. Aung, “Laboratory Web Performance Benchmarking of React.js, SvelteKit, and Nuxt.js SPA/MPA Implementations on an Academic Conference Website”, journalisi, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 5541–5574, Oct. 2026, doi: 10.63158/journalisi.v8i5.1757.