Never choose a tool before you've seen the job. If you need the things Next does, use it. If you don't, don't use it. Just dragging whichever tools you've recently used into your next project is how some of the worst projects I've seen got built. There are many valid solutions to any problem in web dev, and they ALL have tradeoffs.
Some may consider velocity to be part of the problem's domain considerations while others may not. If you consider that part, then Next is a great choice if you are novicely advanced at frontend web.
It does come with a lot of preoptimizations that may not be necessary for the job (as the job is currently defined), but the thoughtful way they're implemented makes having them in there anyway not all that costly. The directory based build stuff that auto code splits, does SSR, and static site generation is high value with a very low learning curve. Not only does it not require a lot of load on the meat to use the bazooka of Next for an anthill of a problem, but it also doesn't really add any load on the metal. And the fact that these features do a great job of covering your ass should business demands pivot under you makes Next a rare kind of contender.
It's a bad choice if all you need is some small piece of an already-existent architecture, but if you need something as the main frontend body for a long-lived app, I've found Next to be the best thing I've ever used by a significant amount.
