Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
CMS.js vs Hugo: What are the differences?
Developers describe CMS.js as "Fully Client-Side JavaScript Site Generator". CMS.js is fully client-side, Javascript site generator in the spirit of Jekyll that uses plain ol' HTML, CSS and Javascript to generate your website. CMS.js is like a file-based CMS. It takes your content, renders Markdown and delivers a complete website in Single-Page App fashion...without the aid of server-side scripting (no Node.js, PHP, Ruby, etc.). On the other hand, Hugo is detailed as "A Fast and Flexible Static Site Generator built with love by spf13 in GoLang". Hugo is a static site generator written in Go. It is optimized for speed, easy use and configurability. Hugo takes a directory with content and templates and renders them into a full html website. Hugo makes use of markdown files with front matter for meta data.
CMS.js and Hugo belong to "Static Site Generators" category of the tech stack.
CMS.js and Hugo are both open source tools. It seems that Hugo with 36.4K GitHub stars and 4.09K forks on GitHub has more adoption than CMS.js with 2.96K GitHub stars and 284 GitHub forks.
Hi everyone, I'm trying to decide which front-end tool, that will likely use server-side rendering (SSR), in hopes it'll be faster. The end-user will upload a document and they see text output on their screen (like SaaS or microservice). I read that Gatsby can also do SSR. Also want to add a headless CMS that is easy to use.
Backend is in Go. Open to ideas. Thank you.
If your purpose is plain simply to upload a file which can handle by backend service than Gatsby is good enough assuming you have other content pages which will benefit from faster page loads for those Headless CMS driven pages. But if you have more logical/functional aspects like deciding content/personalization at server side of web application than choose NextJS.
I have experience with Hugo and Next.js, but not with Gatsby. I would go with Next.js. However, I used Astro for my last project, so I would recommend Astro. Astro is much faster and you can use almost any frontend framework if you need to.
As a Frontend Developer I wanted something simple to generate static websites with technology I am familiar with. GatsbyJS was in the stack I am familiar with, does not need any other languages / package managers and allows quick content deployment in pure HTML or Markdown (what you prefer for a project). It also does not require you to understand a theming engine if you need a custom design.
Pros of CMS.js
Pros of Hugo
- Lightning fast47
- Single Executable29
- Easy setup26
- Great development community24
- Open source23
- Write in golang13
- Not HTML only - JSON, RSS8
- Hacker mindset8
- LiveReload built in7
- Gitlab pages integration4
- Easy to customize themes4
- Very fast builds4
- Well documented3
- Fast builds3
- Easy to learn3
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of CMS.js
Cons of Hugo
- No Plugins/Extensions4
- Template syntax not friendly2
- Quick builds1
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is CMS.js?
What is Hugo?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use CMS.js?
What companies use Hugo?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with CMS.js?
What tools integrate with Hugo?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+22