Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Gatsby vs Hugo: What are the differences?
What is Gatsby? Free, open source framework for building blazing fast websites and apps with React. Gatsby lets you build blazing fast sites with your data, whatever the source. Liberate your sites from legacy CMSs and fly into the future.
What is Hugo? 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.
Gatsby and Hugo belong to "Static Site Generators" category of the tech stack.
"Generated websites are super fast" is the primary reason why developers consider Gatsby over the competitors, whereas "Lightning fast" was stated as the key factor in picking Hugo.
Gatsby and Hugo are both open source tools. It seems that Hugo with 36K GitHub stars and 4.05K forks on GitHub has more adoption than Gatsby with 35.7K GitHub stars and 5.26K GitHub forks.
According to the StackShare community, Gatsby has a broader approval, being mentioned in 48 company stacks & 128 developers stacks; compared to Hugo, which is listed in 36 company stacks and 60 developer stacks.
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 Gatsby
- Generated websites are super fast28
- Fast16
- GraphQL15
- Progressive Web Apps generation10
- Easy to connect with lots of CMS via official plugins9
- Reusable components (React)9
- Allows to use markdown files as articles7
- Static-sites5
- All the benefits of a static website + React+GraphQL5
- Images5
- List of starters as base for new project4
- Easy to connect with Drupal via official plugin3
- Open source3
- Gitlab pages integration1
- Incremental Build1
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 Gatsby
- No ssr6
- Very slow builds3
- Documentation isn't complete.3
- For-profit2
- Slow builds2
- Flash of unstyled content issues2
- Problematic between develop and build commands1
- Difficult debugging1
- Too many dependencies1
- Plugin driven development1
- Difficult maintenance1
Cons of Hugo
- No Plugins/Extensions4
- Template syntax not friendly2
- Quick builds1