Next _also_ supports rendering things on the server if you'd like. So you're not giving up anything at all, there's no trade-off with respect to rendering patterns, unless you just prefer to use another language to build your 'frontend'.
Hosting is 'separate', but the framework snugly fits into a modern hosting paradigm in a way that most others do not.
My blog at https://www.silviogutierrez.com is React+Django strictly server side. I like JSX that much. Try loading it with JS disabled.
Same at my business site: https://www.joyapp.com.
It was a huge ordeal getting it setup (with React SSR, etc), but it's definitely doable. I've open sourced it but it sorely needs documentation (incoming):
https://github.com/silviogutierrez/reactivated
Basically, despite the tooling (not because of it), once you get going with JSX, TypeScript and the like, nothing else comes close. At least in my experience.
But again, none of the above stops me from dumping that output into a single cache key per request. It's still dynamic, just cached robustly.
The model->form and presentation layer is so intuitive and robust that I'm surprised no JS framework has rebuilt it. Too much is focused around REST instead of domain specific inputs / outputs.[2]
So yea, I've focused on making Django more React-friendly. I want to stick to it.
[1] Ok, maybe Rails comes close.
The big difference is that these static site frameworks are using React/Vue/etc for the frontend templating and interactivity instead of a server-side language that has it's own templating and might require complex JS integration. But the trade-off is that you give up that server-side ability or have to use 3rd-party services like a headless CMS instead.