Find your SSG pairing — verdict, criteria, and the take that fits your brief
24 head-to-head pairings. Every one gives you a hand-curated verdict — which framework wins for which brief — plus 5–7 criteria with the winner per criterion. Built from the same /static-site-generators/ directory data, so the take stays consistent.
SEE THE FULL DIRECTORY →The pairings
Different protagonists, not a like-for-like fight.
Read the comparison →Hugo wins on raw build speed and operational simplicity — single Go binary, no Node toolchain, rebuilds 50,000 pages in seconds.
Read the comparison →Eleventy wins for small-to-medium content sites where a UI framework would be overhead.
Read the comparison →For new projects in 2026, this is barely a comparison — pick Next.
Read the comparison →Astro is the modern answer; Gatsby is the legacy answer.
Read the comparison →Hugo is what Jekyll would be if it were rewritten in 2024.
Read the comparison →Eleventy is the JavaScript-flavoured Jekyll for the modern era.
Read the comparison →Same architectural shape, different UI framework.
Read the comparison →SvelteKit ships smaller bundles for the same UI complexity and the developer experience is leaner.
Read the comparison →Both are excellent docs SSGs, picked by the team's primary UI framework.
Read the comparison →Starlight is the framework-agnostic docs option that finally serves teams not locked into React.
Read the comparison →Hugo wins on raw speed and single-binary simplicity.
Read the comparison →Two modern frameworks at the same maturity tier, doing different jobs.
Read the comparison →Astro for content, Nuxt for application-shape Vue work.
Read the comparison →For new projects in 2026, Astro by a wide margin.
Read the comparison →Different scopes, both Vue-team-blessed.
Read the comparison →Hugo is the established choice with a much bigger community.
Read the comparison →For Python project docs the choice is shape-driven.
Read the comparison →Starlight is the framework-agnostic docs option (Astro), VitePress is the Vue-native one.
Read the comparison →Mintlify is the polished hosted option with vendor lock-in; Docusaurus is the open-source self-hosted default.
Read the comparison →Two mature blog SSGs with overlapping audiences.
Read the comparison →Different scopes within the Python world.
Read the comparison →Same architectural shape (islands), different runtime.
Read the comparison →Not really comparable — TinaCMS is a CMS, Astro is a framework.
Read the comparison →How these comparisons are written
Each comparison is a verdict in two parts. The opening paragraph answers the "which one wins for which brief" question — which framework is the right pick for which kind of project. The criteria table answers the specific decision questions: which builds faster, which is easier to hire for, which scales further, which has a healthier maintenance trajectory.
Where one side genuinely wins, I say so directly. Where it is a tie or depends on team and context, I say that too. The job of the comparison is not to declare a winner; it is to surface the trade-offs cleanly enough that you can match them to your brief without spending two weeks on it.
Star counts and trajectory flags are pulled from the underlying directory at /static-site-generators/ — refreshed quarterly, kept honest.
Want the human version of this for your project?
The 30-min call is where the comparison becomes a recommendation for your actual brief — your stack, your migration, your price range. No deck, no qualification screen. By the end, you have the answer you came for.