If you’re deciding between Hugo and Jekyll for your static site generator, here’s a clear comparison to help you choose the right tool for your needs.

Criteria Hugo Jekyll
Performance Extremely fast; can rebuild thousands of pages in seconds. Great for large or frequently updated sites. Slower compared to Hugo, especially with large sites. Suitable for smaller, less frequently updated sites.
Installation Simple: a single binary with no dependencies. Requires Ruby and Gems, which can be complex for non-Ruby users.
Themes Flexible with advanced customization options and shortcodes. Templates use Go’s templating engine. Large library of pre-built themes. Uses Liquid templates, which are simpler but less powerful for advanced users.
Markdown Support Native support with configurable front matter (TOML, YAML, JSON). Excellent for multilingual sites. Markdown support via plugins like kramdown. Front matter is YAML-only. Limited multilingual capabilities.
Ecosystem Rapidly growing community with a smaller but expanding theme library. Hugo also has more GitHub stars, reflecting its developer appeal. Established ecosystem with a mature community and wide adoption. Native integration with GitHub Pages.
Plugins No plugins; functionality is built-in or handled externally. Faster and more secure as a result. Extensive plugin ecosystem for advanced features. Can slow down build times and add complexity.
Use Case Best for performance-focused, large, multilingual, or highly customized sites. Great for smaller sites, blogs, or projects requiring GitHub Pages integration or extensive plugins.
On Github Pages Hosting

Jekyll has native support on GitHub Pages, allowing you to upload Markdown files directly to your repository and have the site built automatically on GitHub’s servers. In contrast, Hugo requires you to build the site yourself (using the hugo command) before deploying the generated static files to GitHub Pages.

Recommendations

  • Choose Hugo if you:

    • Need blazing-fast performance.
    • Prefer a simpler installation process.
    • Work on multilingual or large sites.
    • Want flexibility and control over site structure and layout.

  • Choose Jekyll if you:

    • Need an extensive plugin ecosystem.
    • Want simplicity with pre-built themes.
    • Rely heavily on GitHub Pages for hosting.

Conclusion

Hugo and Jekyll are both excellent tools, but your choice will depend on your specific needs. While Hugo’s rising GitHub star count highlights its developer-first focus and popularity among performance-conscious users, Jekyll shines with its ease of use and extensive theme community.

At the end of the day, Hugo and Jekyll are like coffee and tea—both get the job done, but one’s probably better suited to your taste. So, pick your brew, and let the static site-building begin!