React Development
React interfaces that stay maintainable past the first year — accessible, typed, tested, and built on a component library your team will actually reuse.
Explore this serviceMost Next.js codebases we inherit are client-side React applications wearing a server framework. Everything is a client component, data is fetched in effects, and the app is slower than the SPA it replaced. Used properly, Next.js moves work to the server, caches it, and ships a fraction of the JavaScript.
The App Router asks you to decide, per route, where rendering happens and how long a result stays valid. Those are two of the highest-leverage decisions in a web application, and they are usually made by accident.
We start at the boundary: what is genuinely interactive, and what is just markup that was rendered in the browser out of habit. Pushing that boundary down usually removes most of a bundle without changing a single pixel.
Then caching. Static where the data allows, incrementally revalidated where it changes on a schedule, and dynamic only where it must be — with tag-based invalidation so a CMS edit refreshes exactly the pages it affects and nothing else.
The situations teams are usually in when they bring us this problem.
One `use client` at the top of the tree and the server framework is doing nothing for you. We redraw the boundary.
Every request hits the database because nobody decided otherwise. Caching is a design decision, not a default.
Slow on the devices your customers actually use. We measure with field data and enforce budgets in CI.
The same sequence on every engagement, so there are no surprises in week three.
Field data, bundle analysis, and a route-by-route render audit. We find out what is actually slow before touching anything.
Server components by default, client components where interactivity earns them. This is where most of the win is.
A rendering and revalidation strategy per route, with tag-based invalidation wired to your content sources.
Performance budgets in the pipeline, so the regression that would have crept back in fails the build instead.
Concrete deliverables — all of it yours to keep, run, and hand to another team.
A route-by-route view of where rendering happens and what it costs.
The component boundary redrawn, with the bundle savings measured.
Static, ISR and dynamic routes chosen deliberately, with tag invalidation.
Enforced in CI against real-device targets, so gains do not decay.
Metadata, structured data, sitemap and canonical handling done at the framework level.
Chosen for the problem, not for novelty.
We are not tied to any of these. If your team already runs something that works, we build with it.
The App Router's server components are the point of the framework — everything else follows from using them.
Typed data access at the server boundary, so a component cannot request something the API cannot give it.
Edge caching and preview deploys, so every pull request is reviewable as a running site.
The questions that come up in almost every first conversation.
That is most of this work. We audit the render and caching strategy, redraw the client boundary, and usually deliver a substantially faster application without a rewrite.
New work goes on the App Router. Existing Pages Router applications can migrate route by route — the two coexist, so there is no need for a big-bang cutover.
No. Vercel is the smoothest path, but we deploy Next.js in Docker on AWS and elsewhere regularly. We will tell you what you give up either way.
Bring the problem, not a spec. We will tell you honestly whether we are the right team and outline a concrete first step — no obligation, no sales theatre.