Comparison of the Three Best Static Site Generators: Gatsby, Hugo, and Jekyll

In this article you will see a comparison of the three best static site generators, their pros, cons, and why you should use them.

Websites dominate the internet, whether static or dynamic. Although many sites are dynamic today, static sites remain popular and their usage is increasing.

Static site generators make building static sites easy. Imagine having a website with little or no complex work.

They are incredibly fast compared to dynamic counterparts.

They require less maintenance.

They offer a high level of security.

They are ideal for simple sites such as portfolios.

While you can create a static site manually, the process is difficult, prone to problems when making changes, and scaling is not as straightforward.

Gatsby, Hugo, and Jekyll are three of the most popular static site generators, each with many reasons for their popularity. Let’s see what they offer.

Gatsby

Gatsby is the newest of the three and has grown rapidly, benefiting from a large JavaScript developer community.

In addition to using Node, Gatsby leverages React.js on the client side, allowing component‑based rendering.

Gatsby also supports GraphQL, making data queries easier and enabling sites to pull data from multiple sources.

The sites generated by Gatsby are progressive web apps (PWAs), offering a great user experience that blends web and mobile app features.

PWAs are the next big thing, and you can benefit from them when using Gatsby.

Advantages

Gatsby generates Progressive Web Apps, giving your site the benefits of PWAs.

It supports GraphQL.

A large ecosystem of plugins is available, thanks to a massive community.

Documentation and tutorials are easy to find and of high quality.

Disadvantages

Using Gatsby requires substantial knowledge of JavaScript, React, and GraphQL.

Site generation speed can be slower; Gatsby is a bit slower than the others.

Hugo

Hugo is touted as “the world’s fastest website building framework,” built with Go and released in 2014.

Because Go is a fast language, Hugo’s speed is impressive, allowing massive sites to be built in milliseconds.

Hugo uses Go‑based templates and includes a lightweight HTTP server, making it a complete package.

It eliminates the need for extensive configuration or dependencies, providing a pleasant developer experience.

Due to its speed and built‑in features, Hugo is widely used for blogs and documentation and continues to improve.

Advantages

Unmatched speed.

Many built‑in features, reducing the need for third‑party plugins.

Easy to get started with minimal hassle.

Good documentation.

The template language is not difficult to learn.

Disadvantages

Learning Go can be challenging.

Does not support XML as a data file type (supports YAML, JSON, CSV).

Jekyll

Jekyll was released in 2009 by Tom Preston‑Werner and is the oldest static site generator on this list.

Written in Ruby, Jekyll gained massive attention and contributions thanks to its integration with GitHub.

Like Hugo, Jekyll includes an HTTP server, often used for blogs and portfolios.

Jekyll uses Markdown for content and Liquid templates for page processing, and also supports Sass.

A large developer community provides plugins for almost any functionality.

Advantages

Simple setup and deployment.

Huge developer community for support.

Extensive tutorials and comprehensive documentation.

Easy‑to‑learn Liquid templating language.

Excellent SEO out of the box.

Abundant plugins.

Disadvantages

Setup can be difficult for Windows users because it requires a Ruby environment.

Build speed is relatively slow.

Choosing a Static Site Generator

Choosing among these three static site generators can be challenging because each is a great tool. Below are reasons you might prefer one over the others.

Conclusion

Static site generators make building, modifying, and scaling static sites easier. After reviewing the three best options—Gatsby, Hugo, and Jekyll—you should be better equipped to decide which tool to use for your next static site project.