A static site generator turns content and templates into files (usually HTML, CSS, and JavaScript) during a build instead of rendering every page from a database for each request. This can simplify publishing documentation, marketing pages, portfolios, and blogs, but it does not guarantee a faster site, lower costs, or better security by itself. Build tooling, browser-side JavaScript, assets, external services, and hosting still need to be maintained.
When static generation is a good fit
Static generation is a good fit when most pages are public and can be prepared before a visitor requests them. It is less direct when each request needs private, frequently changing, or personalized data; those features need a server, an API, or a third-party service in addition to the generated files.
- Content workflow: Decide whether editors are comfortable working in a repository, need a browser-based CMS, or will publish through another system.
- Build and deploy: Check the required runtime, build limits, custom-domain support, previews, and how you will roll back a bad release. Static output can run on many hosts; compare their current plans rather than assuming hosting is free. See our guide to hosting a static website.
- Interaction: Search, forms, comments, accounts, and frequently changing data may need client-side code, APIs, server functions, or external services. Include their cost, privacy, and failure modes in the decision.
- Maintenance and migration: Consider the template language, content format, plugin ecosystem, URL structure, and who will maintain the build. If you plan to start from an HTML design, browse the available HTML templates.
Static site generators and frameworks to compare
These options are not a popularity ranking, and they do not all work the same way. Some focus on producing static files; others are broader frameworks or blog and documentation tools with their own conventions. Start with the content workflow and deployment model you need, then check the project’s current documentation and releases. The wider Jamstack model can help explain how generated pages, APIs, and other services fit together.
Astro
Astro is designed for content-focused websites and can render pages to static output. Its islands approach lets a site add interactive components where needed instead of making every page depend on a client-side application. Consider it for documentation, portfolios, and small-business sites with mostly static content and a few interactive areas. If you need request-time rendering or substantial application behavior, check the deployment adapter and runtime requirements before choosing it.
Eleventy (11ty)
Eleventy turns templates and data into static output and supports multiple template languages, including Liquid, Nunjucks, and Handlebars. It suits developers who want control over rendered HTML and a flexible content pipeline without adopting a required client-side framework. You will make more of the decisions about templates, CMS integration, and build workflow yourself.
Hugo
Hugo is a static site generator written in Go, with built-in concepts for content types, menus, summaries, and cross-references. It is worth evaluating for large content collections or a team that wants a Go-based build tool. Learn its content and template conventions first, and choose hosting based on the generated files and required preview workflow rather than assuming the generator supplies those services.
Gatsby
Gatsby is a React-based framework with a build process that can generate static assets from application code and data. It can make sense when a project already depends on Gatsby, React, or its data and plugin conventions. For a new, mostly informational site, compare that build and integration complexity with a smaller generator; browser interactivity and request-time server behavior are separate requirements.
VuePress
VuePress is a Markdown-centered static site generator aimed at documentation and similar content. It can render Vue components in Markdown, which is useful when product documentation needs live examples or the team already works in Vue. Its documentation-first structure may be less convenient for a general marketing site with a different content or editing model.
Jekyll
Jekyll is a Ruby-based, blog-aware static site generator. It can be a straightforward fit for a small blog or a site already built around its posts, layouts, and Liquid templates. GitHub Pages supports Jekyll; for deployments that need a custom build, the GitHub Pages documentation recommends using GitHub Actions.
Jekyll uses Markdown content and Liquid templates. If you are already using Jekyll, our collection of Jekyll themes may help with a portfolio or blog. Account for Ruby and gem dependencies when you set up a local build or custom deployment.
Middleman
Middleman is a Ruby-based static site generator for building frontend sites. It may be a practical choice for a team that already maintains a Middleman project or is comfortable with its Ruby toolchain. Before starting a new site, compare its setup, current dependencies, and deployment process with a simpler blog-oriented generator.
Hexo
Hexo is a Node.js blog framework: write posts in Markdown or another supported markup language, then build static files. Its themes and plugins can speed up a blog workflow, but check their compatibility with the Node.js version and deployment environment you plan to maintain.
Pelican
Pelican is a Python static site generator that supports Markdown and reStructuredText content. It is a natural option to evaluate when a team wants to keep a publishing workflow in Python; review its themes and plugins as well as the core tool before estimating the maintenance work. If your content is written in AsciiDoc, see the current AsciiDoc project site when comparing format support.
Sculpin
Sculpin is a PHP static site generator with documentation for sources, layouts, themes, and content types. It is most relevant when a project already uses PHP or needs its particular content pipeline. Check the current supported PHP and dependency versions before committing a new site to it.
Harp
Harp combines a static web server with built-in preprocessing for formats such as Markdown and Sass. It is worth knowing about when maintaining an existing Harp site, but its workflow is more specialized than a general-purpose content generator. For a new production site, verify its current release, runtime, and dependency support before relying on older setup guides.
Metalsmith
Metalsmith is a Node.js static site generator built around a pluggable file-processing pipeline. That flexibility is useful when a project needs custom transformations, but it also means your team owns the plugin choices and their maintenance. Choose it for a concrete pipeline requirement, not just because a static homepage is needed.
Check the publishing and runtime tradeoffs
A static build does not include a database, account system, or request-time application logic automatically. You can connect generated pages to APIs or add serverless functions, but that adds deployment, security, and monitoring work. Static output is not a substitute for updating dependencies, checking accessibility, or protecting any backend services you connect.
Before you choose a generator, check these common constraints:
- Editorial access: If contributors need a browser-based editor, a Git-based CMS such as Decap CMS can be one option, but verify its identity provider, media workflow, previews, and permissions. The old Netlify CMS URL now resolves to an unrelated site, so do not use it. The former Forestry URL now leads to migration guidance for existing sites.
- Design and content changes: A generator does not provide a visual page builder by default. Decide who will implement template, navigation, or layout changes and how they will be reviewed.
- Team publishing: Multiple editors may need draft previews, access controls, conflict handling, and a clear publishing workflow in addition to the generator.
- Hosting and previews: Builds, preview deployments, bandwidth, functions, and rollbacks depend on the host and your setup. Compare current limits and prices for the actual traffic and workflow you expect; our static hosting guide is a starting point.
- Migration effort: Inventory templates, plugins, front matter, images, search, forms, and existing URLs before moving. Preserve important paths or configure redirects, and test a representative page before migrating the full site.
If you need frequent browser-based editing, built-in accounts, or dynamic business workflows, a traditional CMS or website builder may be a better fit than adding services around a static build. For a WordPress option, see our guide to setting up a WordPress blog.
You can add selected features through browser-side JavaScript or services such as Disqus for comments and Formspree for forms. Review their current pricing, privacy terms, and data handling, and decide what should happen if a service is unavailable. Choose the generator whose content and deployment workflow your team can maintain, rather than migrating just to follow a popularity list.
A quick way to narrow the list
- Start with Astro for a content-led site that needs selective interactive components, or Eleventy when you want to choose your own templates and keep the output pipeline flexible.
- Evaluate Hugo for a content-heavy site and a Go-based build; consider Jekyll when its blog workflow or GitHub Pages integration fits your project.
- Prefer VuePress for documentation that benefits from Vue components, Pelican for a Python-centered publishing workflow, and Hexo for a Node.js blog.
- Choose Gatsby when its React and data ecosystem is already useful to the project; use Middleman, Sculpin, Harp, or Metalsmith when their specific workflow matches an existing site or a concrete technical need.
- Do not migrate a working site just to follow a popularity list. Compare the operational work and migration risk with the problem the new generator would actually solve.