Popular Static Site Generator Comparison: Jekyll, Docusaurus, Sphinx, Hugo

Static Site Generator

Choosing the right static site generator(SSGs) from the wide range of options available for technical writing can be daunting, whether it’s for blogs, personal websites, or open-source project documentation.

Over the years, I’ve used multiple static site generators, primarily for my website. I started with writing on blogging platforms and gradually transitioned to a self-hosted and self-managed approach. Initially, I utilized dynamic website solutions like WordPress, then moved on to static site generators like GitHub Pages, and ultimately Hugo.

Recently, I came across a few project documentation sites built with Docusaurus, which sparked my interest in writing a summary and a comparative breakdown of these popular static site generators on the market.

It’s not surprising that there are outstanding articles discussing the differences among some of the most popular static site generators: Jekyll, Docusaurus, Sphinx, and Hugo. Furthermore, tools like ChatGPT, Grok, and DeepSeek simplify the process of writing this article even more.

Takeaways

1. Choose the best SSG tool that fits your project requirements and your team’s expertise.
2. Unintentionally, this post has become more like an LLM comparison than a static site generator comparison.
3. LLM tools like ChatGPT, Grok, and DeepSeek have made writing and image generation much easier. (This article is a perfect example)
4. LLM tools fundamentally changed how people get information from the internet, drastically reducing the need for search. (Bad news for Google who dominates the search market)
5. Grok has the most comprehensive, to some extent even verbose, answer to this specific question; whereas ChatGPT and DeepSeek offer a more concise one.
6. Grok has the worst Markdown support. I need to manually add all Markdown formatting, which is tedious, especially for those tables. Answers from ChatGPT and DeepSeek can be directly copied and pasted to a Markdown file.

ChatGPT Writing

Here’s a comparison of Jekyll, Docusaurus, Sphinx, and Hugo, focusing on their use cases, features, and pros/cons.

Detailed Breakdown

1. Jekyll

• Best For: Blogs and personal sites
• Strengths: Strong integration with GitHub Pages, Liquid templating system, good plugin ecosystem.
• Weaknesses: Written in Ruby, so setup can be complex for non-Ruby users.

2. Docusaurus

• Best For: Documentation sites, especially for developer tools and projects.
• Strengths: Uses React and MDX, easy versioning, great for interactive documentation.
• Weaknesses: React-based, so build times can be slower compared to Hugo.

3. Sphinx

• Best For: Technical documentation, especially for Python projects.
• Strengths: Supports reStructuredText, powerful cross-referencing, ReadTheDocs integration.
• Weaknesses: reStructuredText has a steeper learning curve compared to Markdown.

4. Hugo

• Best For: High-performance blogs, documentation, and static sites.
• Strengths: Extremely fast build times, written in Go, flexible templating.
• Weaknesses: Go templates can be difficult for beginners.

Which One Should You Choose?

• For a blog or personal site → Jekyll or Hugo (Hugo is faster, Jekyll is simpler for GitHub Pages users).
• For a modern documentation site → Docusaurus (especially if you need React/MDX support).
• For highly technical documentation → Sphinx (great for Python projects and complex docs).
• For a blazing-fast static site → Hugo (ideal for large-scale static sites).

Grok Writing

When choosing a static site generator or documentation tool, the decision often depends on your specific use case, technical expertise, and project requirements. Below is a detailed comparison of Jekyll, Docusaurus, Sphinx, and Hugo, focusing on their features, use cases, strengths, and weaknesses.

1. Overview of Each Tool

2. Feature Comparison

3. Strengths and Weaknesses

Jekyll

• Strengths:
  • Native integration with GitHub Pages, making it ideal for hosting simple sites. Large ecosystem of themes and plugins.
  • Great for blogs, portfolios, and small to medium-sized websites. Lightweight and easy to extend with Liquid templating.
• Weaknesses:
  • Performance can be slow for large sites due to Ruby’s processing overhead. Setup can be tricky for non-Ruby developers.
  • Limited built-in features for documentation-heavy projects (e.g., versioning, search).

Docusaurus

• Strengths:
  • Designed specifically for technical documentation, especially for open-source projects.
  • Built-in features like versioning, search (via Algolia), and multi-language support.
  • Uses React, making it highly customizable for JavaScript developers.
  • Modern, user-friendly interface out of the box.
• Weaknesses:
  • Not ideal for general-purpose websites (e.g., blogs, portfolios).
  • Requires familiarity with JavaScript/React for advanced customization.
  • Smaller ecosystem of themes compared to Jekyll or Hugo.

Sphinx

• Strengths:
  • Industry standard for Python-based documentation (e.g., Python, NumPy, Django).
  • Excellent support for reStructuredText and technical documentation features (e.g., API docs, cross-references).
  • Highly extensible with plugins for code documentation (e.g., autodoc).
  • Strong integration with Python ecosystems.
• Weaknesses:
  • Steeper learning curve, especially for non-Python developers.
  • Limited support for Markdown (reStructuredText is the default).
  • Not suitable for general-purpose websites or blogs.
  • Themes and styling options are more limited compared to others.

Hugo

• Strengths:
  • Extremely fast build times, even for large sites, thanks to Go’s performance.
  • Great for blogs, portfolios, and complex websites.
  • Large ecosystem of themes and plugins.
  • Built-in support for multi-language sites.
  • Single binary deployment (no dependencies required).
• Weaknesses:
  • Not specifically designed for documentation, so it lacks features like versioning or search out of the box.
  • Go templating can be less intuitive compared to Liquid or React.
  • Smaller community compared to Jekyll, though still active.

4. Best Use Cases

5. Technical Expertise Required

6. Hosting and Deployment

7. When to Choose Each Tool

• Choose Jekyll if:
  • You want a simple static site generator for blogs or portfolios.
  • You’re already using GitHub Pages for hosting.
  • You prefer a mature ecosystem with many themes and plugins.
• Choose Docusaurus if:
  • You’re building technical documentation for an open-source project or product.
  • You need built-in features like versioning, search, and multi-language support.
  • You’re comfortable with JavaScript/React.
• Choose Sphinx if:
  • You’re working on a Python-based project or need high-quality API documentation.
  • You prefer reStructuredText over Markdown.
  • You need a tool tightly integrated with the Python ecosystem.
• Choose Hugo if:
  • You need a high-performance static site generator for large or complex websites.
  • You want built-in multi-language support.
  • You value speed and simplicity in deployment.

DeepSeek Writing

When comparing Jekyll, Docusaurus, Sphinx, and Hugo, it’s important to consider their primary use cases, ease of use, flexibility, and community support. Here’s a detailed comparison:

1. Jekyll

• Primary Use Case: Static site generation, particularly for blogs and personal websites.
• Language: Ruby
• Ease of Use: Moderate. Requires knowledge of Ruby and Liquid templating.
• Flexibility: High. Can be customized extensively with plugins and themes.
• Community Support: Large and active community. Many themes and plugins available.
• Documentation: Comprehensive and well-maintained.
• Performance: Good, but can be slower for very large sites.
• Hosting: Can be hosted on GitHub Pages, Netlify, etc.
• Best For: Bloggers, developers who prefer Ruby, and those who want a simple, flexible static site generator.

2. Docusaurus

• Primary Use Case: Documentation websites, especially for open-source projects.
• Language: JavaScript (React)
• Ease of Use: Easy, especially for those familiar with React.
• Flexibility: Moderate. Designed specifically for documentation, so less flexible for other types of sites.
• Community Support: Growing, especially within the open-source community.
• Documentation: Excellent, with a focus on ease of use for documentation.
• Performance: Good, optimized for documentation sites.
• Hosting: Can be hosted on GitHub Pages, Netlify, Vercel, etc.
• Best For: Open-source projects, technical documentation, and teams familiar with React.

3. Sphinx

• Primary Use Case: Documentation generation, particularly for Python projects.
• Language: Python
• Ease of Use: Moderate to difficult. Requires knowledge of reStructuredText or Markdown.
• Flexibility: High, especially for technical documentation. Supports extensions and custom themes.
• Community Support: Strong within the Python community.
• Documentation: Comprehensive, but can be complex for beginners.
• Performance: Good, optimized for large documentation sets.
• Hosting: Can be hosted on Read the Docs, GitHub Pages, etc.
• Best For: Python projects, technical documentation, and developers comfortable with reStructuredText.

4. Hugo

• Primary Use Case: Static site generation for a wide range of websites, including blogs, portfolios, and documentation.
• Language: Go (Golang)
• Ease of Use: Easy to moderate. Uses Go templates, which can be learned quickly.
• Flexibility: Very high. Extremely fast and supports a wide range of content types.
• Community Support: Large and active community. Many themes and plugins available.
• Documentation: Comprehensive and well-maintained.
• Performance: Excellent, known for its speed even with large sites.
• Hosting: Can be hosted on GitHub Pages, Netlify, AWS, etc.
• Best For: Developers who need fast build times, large sites, and those who prefer Go.

Summary Table

Conclusion

• Jekyll is great for bloggers and those who prefer Ruby.
• Docusaurus is ideal for documentation, especially for React-based projects.
• Sphinx is the go-to for Python projects needing detailed documentation.
• Hugo is versatile and fast, suitable for a wide range of static sites, especially large ones.