Hugo vs Jekyll vs Pelican: What are the differences?

Introduction

In the world of static site generators, Hugo, Jekyll, and Pelican are three popular choices that offer developers the ability to create fast and efficient websites. However, each of these tools has its own unique features and characteristics. In this article, we will delve into the key differences between Hugo, Jekyll, and Pelican in order to help you make an informed decision on which static site generator is best suited for your needs.

1. Structure: Hugo uses a single binary executable that is written in Go. This architecture allows Hugo to be incredibly fast, making it a popular choice for large websites or blogs. On the other hand, Jekyll is written in Ruby and requires Ruby to be installed on the system. Pelican, on the other hand, is written in Python and uses the Jinja2 templating engine.

2. Extensibility: Both Hugo and Jekyll have a wide range of themes and plugins available, allowing users to extend the functionality of their websites. However, Hugo has a larger and more active community, resulting in a greater number of themes and plugins. Pelican, though it has a smaller community, also offers a good selection of themes and plugins.

3. Performance: When it comes to performance, Hugo outshines both Jekyll and Pelican. Hugo's Go-based architecture allows it to generate websites in just a fraction of the time it takes Jekyll or Pelican. This makes Hugo a great choice for websites that require frequent updates or have a large number of pages.

4. Templating: Jekyll uses the Liquid templating language, which provides a flexible and easy-to-use syntax for creating templates. Hugo, on the other hand, uses Go's native templating language, which may require a bit more learning for those unfamiliar with Go. Pelican uses the Jinja2 templating engine, which offers a similar syntax to Liquid and is also easy to use.

5. Content Organization: Hugo uses a content organization structure that is based on folders and files. This makes it easy to create and organize content, especially for larger websites. Jekyll, on the other hand, uses a similar structure but requires key-value pairs in the file headers for additional metadata. Pelican uses a similar structure to Jekyll, with content organized into folders and files.

6. Deployment: Hugo offers a built-in server for testing and debugging websites locally. It also provides easy deployment options to various platforms, including FTP, Git, rsync, and more. Jekyll and Pelican also offer similar deployment options, but may require additional configuration or plugins for certain platforms.

In summary, Hugo offers exceptional performance and a large community, making it ideal for large websites or blogs that require frequent updates. Jekyll and Pelican both offer solid performance and a good range of themes and plugins, but may be better suited for smaller websites or blogs. Ultimately, the choice between these static site generators will depend on your specific needs and preferences.