How do Hugo vs Jekyll compare? An overview
Hugo and Jekyll are classic static site generators designed to create fast, low-maintenance websites based on static content. Hugo stands out for its lightning-fast build times and straightforward configuration, while Jekyll is popular for its GitHub integration and flexible extensibility. Both are commonly used for blogs and documentation projects.
- Intuitive website builder with AI assistance
- Create captivating images and texts in seconds
- Domain, SSL and email included
What Are Hugo and Jekyll?
Both Hugo and Jekyll are classic static site generators (SSG), meaning they are tools for creating static websites. They generate complete HTML pages from structured content, usually written in Markdown, using templates. Unlike dynamic website generators that regenerate content with every call, these pages are only rebuilt when content changes. Both tools follow the principle “Build once, deploy anywhere,” meaning a website or application is built once and can be deployed on various platforms or environments.
What are the key features of Jekyll vs. Hugo?
| Feature | Hugo | Jekyll |
|---|---|---|
| Programming language | Go(lang) | Ruby |
| Template engine | Go Templates | Liquid |
| Plugins | No official interface, but extendable through shortcodes and themes | Integrated plugin system |
| Themes | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache 2.0 (Open Source) | MIT (Open Source) |
| Installation | Not required, delivered as a binary file | Required |
| Asset pipeline | Supports SASS, JavaScript, images and more | SASS and CoffeeScript supported natively, extensions possible via plugins |
| Build speed | Extremely fast (a leader in the field) | Fast (since version 4.0) |
| Multilingual support | Built-in | Achievable via plugins |
| Input formats | Support for Markdown, AsciiDoc, RST, and HTML | Markdown and HTML (additional formats via plugins) |
- Get online faster with AI tools
- Fast-track growth with AI marketing
- Save time, maximize results
How do the key features of Hugo vs. Jekyll compare?
Both Hugo and Jekyll are widely used and well-established, but they follow different approaches and focus areas. The comparison below can help you decide between Jekyll vs. Hugo:
Programming language and setup
Hugo is built with Go and is quick to install as a precompiled binary with no additional dependencies. See the official Hugo installation instructions for details on operating systems, including macOS, Linux, and Windows.
Jekyll is based on Ruby and installed using RubyGems, Ruby’s package manager. The official website offers Jekyll installation instructions for various platforms. While Hugo works “out of the box” Jekyll setup—especially on Windows—is a bit more complex.
Installing Hugo is generally easier than installing Jekyll.
Performance and build rimes
Hugo is known for its exceptionally fast build times. Thanks to its Go-based architecture, it can generate even large websites with thousands of pages in just seconds.
Jekyll performs well for smaller projects, but for larger websites, build times are typically longer. Plugins and complex themes can also slow it down.
For performance and build speed, Hugo has a clear advantage—especially for larger projects.
Template system and flexibility
Hugo uses the Go template engine, which is powerful and well-suited for complex layouts. With partials, custom shortcodes and a clear template hierarchy, you can create highly flexible page structures. Themes can be integrated and extended modularly.
Jekyll uses the Liquid template engine, which has a simpler syntax. Themes are usually installed via RubyGems and can be customized as needed. While straightforward, Liquid is less flexible for complex requirements compared to Hugo.
Hugo offers more design freedom and modularity, while Jekyll benefits from a simpler, more accessible structure.
Supported formats and content management
Hugo natively supports HTML and Markdown and can handle additional formats like AsciiDoc and reStructuredText with external tools. Configuration can be done using YAML, JSON or TOML. Hugo also supports sections, taxonomies and custom content types for flexible content organization.
Jekyll supports HTML, Markdown and Textile content, with Front Matter than can use YAML, JSON, CSV, or TSV. Content is typically organized in the “_posts” folder or custom collections.
Hugo provides a wider range of formats and more flexible structuring options than Jekyll.
Extensibility and plugins
Hugo does not have a dedicated plugin interface, but can be extended through shortcodes, themes, and modules. These often require more manual work than using plugins, however.
Jekyll offers an integrated plugin system for functionality extensions. However, GitHub Pages limits plugin usage because many are not supported on the platform.
Jekyll’s plugin system is versatile and very flexible locally. Hugo relies on modular extensions like shortcodes and themes, rather than a central plugin interface.
Community
When comparing Hugo vs Jekyll, both have large, active communities that provide support, tutorials and dedicated discussion forums.
Which use cases suit Hugo and Jekyll?
Both Hugo and Jekyll are excellent for static websites, but each has strengths for different project types:
- Hugo is ideal for large or structured projects like documentation or multilingual websites, thanks to its short build times and flexible configuration. Portfolios and marketing websites also benefit from its performance and design flexibility.
- Jekyll works well for personal websites, classic blogs and smaller projects. Its integration with GitHub Pages allows direct publishing from a Git repository, making it particularly appealing for developers who already use GitHub.