The static site generator market has matured. Five years ago, you had dozens of options and genuine uncertainty about which would survive. In 2026, the winners are clear, and the choice depends less on which tool is “best” and more on what you’re building.

I’ve built sites with most of the major SSGs over the past few years. Here’s what I reach for now and why.

Next.js — The Default for Complex Projects

Next.js isn’t technically a static site generator — it’s a React framework that can generate static sites, server-render pages, or do both simultaneously. That flexibility makes it the default choice for anything beyond a simple blog or documentation site.

If you need client-side interactivity, user authentication, API routes, or complex data fetching, Next.js handles all of it in one framework. The App Router (stable since Next.js 13) provides a sensible file-based routing system, and the server component model keeps JavaScript bundle sizes reasonable while maintaining React’s compositional benefits.

The trade-off is complexity. A minimal Next.js site brings in more dependencies and configuration than simpler SSGs. Build times can be slow for large sites, though incremental static regeneration helps. And you’re tied to the Node.js ecosystem and React’s patterns, which might be overkill for a personal blog.

Use Next.js when you’re building an application that happens to have some static pages, not a static site that needs a bit of interactivity.

Hugo — Still the Fastest

Hugo generates sites absurdly fast. A site with 10,000 pages builds in under 5 seconds. For large documentation sites, marketing sites with hundreds of pages, or any context where build speed matters, Hugo remains unbeatable.

The templating syntax is Go-based and takes some adjustment if you’re coming from JavaScript templating languages. But once you’re comfortable with it, Hugo’s template system is powerful and the content organization model (sections, taxonomies, content types) scales well for complex information architectures.

Hugo has minimal dependencies — it’s a single binary. No package.json with 400 dependencies, no Node version management, no npm install times. You download Hugo and start building. This simplicity is refreshing after working with JavaScript build toolchains.

The weakness is modern JavaScript integration. If your site needs React components, complex client-side state management, or anything that requires a sophisticated JavaScript build pipeline, Hugo fights you. It’s possible with custom build scripts and external tools, but at that point you should probably just use a JavaScript-based SSG.

Use Hugo for content-heavy sites where speed and simplicity matter more than JavaScript interactivity.

Astro — The Middle Ground

Astro has become my default for sites that fall between “simple content site” and “complex web application.” It ships zero JavaScript by default but lets you add interactivity exactly where needed using your framework of choice — React, Vue, Svelte, or vanilla JS.

The component model is elegant. Most of your site is static HTML generated at build time. When you need interactivity, you add a client directive to a component and Astro hydrates just that component with JavaScript. The rest stays static.

This “islands architecture” produces fast sites with good UX. You get the interactivity where it matters without sending megabytes of JavaScript for a mostly-static page. Build times are reasonable — faster than Next.js, slower than Hugo.

Astro also integrates well with content management. Built-in markdown support, content collections for type-safe content access, and good support for MDX when you need components in your content. For a blog or documentation site that occasionally needs interactive examples, Astro hits the sweet spot.

Some folks working with business AI solutions have mentioned using Astro for documentation sites and product landing pages — the balance of speed, simplicity, and selective interactivity fits marketing and docs use cases well.

Use Astro when you want a mostly-static site with islands of interactivity, or when you want Next.js-like development experience without the complexity.

Jekyll — Still Fine for Simple Blogs

Jekyll is the OG static site generator and it’s still perfectly serviceable for simple blogs. GitHub Pages has native Jekyll support, so you can push markdown files and they build automatically. No build pipeline to configure locally.

The Ruby dependency can be annoying — managing Ruby versions and gem dependencies isn’t as smooth as modern JavaScript tooling. But for a basic blog with a theme, you can often avoid dealing with Ruby directly and just use GitHub Pages’ hosted build.

Jekyll’s ecosystem has stagnated relative to newer tools. Themes and plugins exist but development has slowed. If you need modern features or active community development, look elsewhere.

Use Jekyll if you want something dead simple, you’re already comfortable with Ruby, or you’re hosting on GitHub Pages and want the convenience of automatic builds.

11ty — The Flexible Option

11ty tries to be unopinionated and flexible. It supports multiple templating languages (Liquid, Nunjucks, Handlebars, JavaScript, and others), lets you mix and match, and doesn’t force architectural decisions on you.

This flexibility is both strength and weakness. You can build almost anything with 11ty, but you have to make more decisions upfront. If you want a well-worn path, Next.js or Astro provide more guardrails.

11ty’s JavaScript ecosystem integration is solid. Unlike Hugo, working with modern JavaScript tooling feels natural. Unlike Next.js, you’re not fighting the framework when you want to do something unconventional.

Use 11ty when you have specific needs that don’t fit neatly into other frameworks’ opinionated structures, or when you want JavaScript-based templating without React.

What I Actually Use

Personal blog or simple documentation: Hugo or Astro depending on whether I need any interactivity. Hugo if it’s pure content, Astro if I want interactive code examples or demos.

Marketing site with interactive elements: Astro or Next.js depending on complexity. Astro for mostly-static with some interaction, Next.js if there’s user authentication or server-side logic.

Large documentation site: Hugo unless the project already uses Next.js for the main application and we want to keep everything in one framework.

Web application with marketing pages: Next.js for everything. Splitting the stack isn’t worth it when you need server rendering, API routes, and authentication.

The choice matters less than it did five years ago. All of these tools are mature and capable. Pick based on your needs and what your team knows, not on which has the most GitHub stars this month.