The Best Static Website Generators, and When to Choose Them Over a CMS

In the early days of the web, websites were simple affairs consisting of static HTML files with some CSS styling. There was no server-side scripting or databases. Websites were developed by directly editing files, often with the help of tools like Adobe Dreamweaver.

As web development evolved, Content Management Systems (CMS) like WordPress emerged to make creating and managing websites easier, especially for non-technical users. CMS platforms powered dynamic sites that could be updated through an admin interface and stored content in a database. They offered plugins to easily add functionality and pre-made themes to style the site.

While CMS revolutionized web design and are still a popular choice, in recent years there‘s been a resurgence of interest in static websites. Modern static site generators like Jekyll, Hugo, and Gatsby provide an alternative way to build websites that offer certain advantages over CMS in terms of performance, security, and flexibility.

The Rise of Static Site Generators

Static site generators take content, typically stored in flat files rather than databases, apply it against layouts or templates, and generate a structure of purely static HTML files ready to be delivered to visitors.

The key difference between a static site and a dynamic CMS-driven site is that with a static site, all the pages are pre-built and content changes require regenerating the site. With a CMS, pages are built on-demand, pulling the latest content from the database.

Interest in static site generators has grown as their ecosystems have matured to support advanced functionality and streamlined workflows. They appeal to developers for their simplicity and performance and have become a popular choice for blogs, documentation sites, and landing pages.

Some of the leading static generators include:

• Jekyll – Built with Ruby and integrated with GitHub Pages, Jekyll is the most established static generator with a large plugin ecosystem
• Hugo – Hugo is known for its build speed, able to render thousands of pages in seconds. It‘s built with Go and offers built-in support for things like menus and taxonomies
• Gatsby – Gatsby is a relative newcomer that has rapidly grown in popularity. It leverages React and GraphQL to build sites as SPAs with excellent performance
• Hexo – A NodeJS based generator that combines Jekyll‘s extensibility with the speed of Hugo
• Wintersmith – Another NodeJS option, Wintersmith takes a minimalist approach and is designed to be customized with plugins

Advantages of Static Site Generators

So what‘s driving the growing adoption of static site generators? There are several compelling benefits they offer compared to CMS-driven sites.

Performance

Since static sites are just collections of pre-built HTML files, they are typically much faster than CMS-powered sites. There‘s no overhead from querying databases or running server-side code, so pages can be delivered to visitors instantly. This performance boost is particularly notable for high-traffic sites.

Static files can also be served from a global Content Delivery Network (CDN) to ensure speedy delivery to users anywhere. The simplified infrastructure of static hosting tends to be more affordable than the typical CMS hosting stack of a web server and database, especially at scale.

Security

With a CMS, the surface area for potential vulnerabilities is relatively large. The CMS itself may have security holes, as can any of the plugins or themes it depends on. An attacker who gains access to the CMS admin could deface the site.

In contrast, static sites have much less exposure to potential threats. There‘s no CMS or database to hack, so the only real vulnerability is the web server itself. Static sites are immune to the most common website exploit – SQL injection. Hosting static files on a CDN further reduces the attack surface.

Version Control

Since static sites are just a collection of files, they are a natural fit for version control systems like Git. Tracking changes, rolling back to earlier versions, or forking a site becomes as easy as managing code.

In a typical Git workflow, different branches can be used to work on new content which is then merged with the main site after review. This encourages an agile process and makes it simple for teams to collaborate.

Tight integration with version control enables automation, such as automatically deploying the site whenever changes are pushed. The popular JAMstack architecture revolves around Git-centric workflows powered by static generators and atomic deploys to CDN infrastructure.

CMS vs Static Generators – How to Choose

With all the advantages outlined above, should you ditch your CMS and jump to a static generator? As with most technology choices, the answer depends on the specific needs and constraints of your project.

A CMS remains a better choice when:

• Non-technical users need to be able to easily publish content
• The site requires server-side functionality like user login, form processing, search, etc.
• Frequent content updates need to be immediately available
• A wide variety of page designs/layouts are needed

Static generators are a great fit when:

• The site is relatively simple without need for advanced CMS features
• Most content is authored by developers comfortable with Markdown and Git
• High performance and security are essential
• Tighter control over the codebase and deployment is desired

Sometimes a hybrid approach can work well, using a CMS with a static site generator plugin or deploying a statically generated site and a CMS on different subdomains. For example, a marketing site could be a static site for performance while the blog is powered by WordPress for its rich content management.

The Future of Static Site Generation

As static generators grow in popularity, the associated tooling and services continue to evolve to fill in the gaps compared to CMS platforms.

On the content management side, "headless" CMS options like Contentful, Forestry, and NetlifyCMS aim to bring some CMS-like content editing and workflows to static sites. These tools provide web-based interfaces for content managers alongside static generation and integration with deploy services.

To address the lack of server-side functionality, static sites can leverage third-party services and APIs to add capabilities like comments, search, and user login. A growing number of services cater to supporting static sites in this way.

The JavaScript ecosystem has also expanded the possibilities of static sites. Generators like Gatsby use React to create static progressive web apps that still feel dynamic. The lines between static and dynamic are blurring.

As the Jamstack architecture matures, static site development is becoming a more full-featured, mainstream option. Frameworks like Next.js and Nuxt.js combine static generation with serverless functions to offer a hybrid approach. Even WordPress is embracing a more decoupled architecture with the WordPress REST API enabling a static front-end.

Conclusion

While they may seem like a return to the past, modern static site generators offer a fresh approach to building websites that are faster, more secure, and version-controlled.

For many sites, the simplicity and performance advantages of static generation make it a compelling choice. As the ecosystem matures, static site tools are becoming viable for a wider range of projects.

A CMS is still the best option when its rich content management features and extensibility are required. But for sites where those features are overkill, a static generator can streamline development while providing a great experience to users.

Ultimately, choosing between a static site generator and a CMS comes down to carefully evaluating the needs of your specific project. In many cases, static generators can provide a more modern, performant, and developer-friendly approach to building websites.