📦

Astro

VS
📦

Hugo

Astro vs Hugo

Astro vs Hugo: which is right for your project? Astro is content-focused framework that ships zero javascript by default. Hugo is fastest static site generator, written in go. We compare features, performance, and pricing.

Start Migration

TL;DR — Our Recommendation

It depends — Astro and Hugo serve different use cases well. Choose Astro for Content-heavy websites that need maximum performance with minimal JavaScript. Choose Hugo for Documentation sites and blogs where build speed and simplicity matter most.

Official docs: Astro Documentation · Hugo Documentation

Feature by Feature Comparison

FeatureAstroHugo
Ease of Use
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Performance
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Flexibility
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Cost Value
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scalability
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Ecosystem
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Pros & Cons

Astro

Pros

  • Ships zero JS to the client by default (Islands Architecture)
  • Use React, Vue, Svelte, or any framework in the same project
  • Content collections with type-safe Markdown/MDX
  • Purpose-built for content sites — blogs, docs, marketing pages

Cons

  • Not ideal for highly interactive apps (designed for content sites)
  • Smaller ecosystem than Next.js — fewer integrations available
  • SSR support is newer and less battle-tested
  • Island architecture requires thinking differently about interactivity

Hugo

Pros

  • Blazing fast builds — renders 10,000 pages in seconds
  • Single binary with zero dependencies
  • Built-in image processing, taxonomies, and i18n
  • Huge theme library for quick starts

Cons

  • Go template syntax has a steep learning curve
  • No JavaScript framework — limits client-side interactivity
  • Plugin system is limited compared to Gatsby or Astro
  • Harder to add dynamic features without additional tooling

Platform Details

DetailAstroHugo
Language / Stack
JavaScript/TypeScript (framework-agnostic)Go (Go templates)
Type
frameworkssg
Pricing
Free (open-source)Free (open-source)
Open Source
YesYes
Best For
Content-heavy websites that need maximum performance with minimal JavaScriptDocumentation sites and blogs where build speed and simplicity matter most
Export Method
N/A (destination framework)N/A (destination framework)

When to Choose Each Platform

Choose Astro if…

  • You need content-heavy websites that need maximum performance with minimal javascript
  • Your team is comfortable with JavaScript/TypeScript (framework-agnostic)
  • You want an open-source solution with full code ownership
  • Budget is a top priority — free (open-source)
  • You want a low learning curve for non-technical team members
  • You want maximum performance with static or server-rendered pages

Choose Hugo if…

  • You need documentation sites and blogs where build speed and simplicity matter most
  • Your team is comfortable with Go (Go templates)
  • You want an open-source solution with full code ownership
  • Budget is a top priority — free (open-source)
  • You want maximum performance with static or server-rendered pages

Which Should You Pick?

The right choice between Astro and Hugo depends on three things: your team's technical skills, your project timeline, and your long-term content strategy.

These platforms take fundamentally different approaches. Astro is a framework built with JavaScript/TypeScript (framework-agnostic), while Hugo is a ssg built with Go (Go templates). That architectural difference shapes everything from daily content editing workflows to deployment and hosting costs. Both platforms require some technical comfort — consider which tech stack aligns better with your team's existing skills.

From a cost perspective, both platforms are open-source, so the real cost difference is hosting and operational overhead. Factor in plugin or extension costs, developer rates for each tech stack, and whether you need managed hosting or can self-host.

Whichever you choose, migrating between them is straightforward. LeaveWP supports migration between 60+ platforms, so you're never locked in regardless of which you pick today.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Astro better than Hugo?
They're closely matched (25/30 vs 24/30). Astro is best for Content-heavy websites that need maximum performance with minimal JavaScript, while Hugo excels for Documentation sites and blogs where build speed and simplicity matter most. Your choice should depend on your team's skills and project requirements.
Can I migrate from Astro to Hugo?
Yes. Export your Astro content via N/A (destination framework), then convert it to Markdown or import into a headless CMS. LeaveWP can help automate this process while preserving your SEO metadata and URL structure.
What are the main differences between Astro and Hugo?
Astro is content-focused framework that ships zero javascript by default, while Hugo is fastest static site generator, written in go. Key differences: ease of use (Astro: 4/5, Hugo: 3/5), pricing (Free (open-source) vs Free (open-source)), and scalability (Astro: 4/5, Hugo: 5/5).
How much does Astro cost compared to Hugo?
Astro: Free (open-source). Hugo: Free (open-source). Both are open-source, so the main cost difference is hosting and infrastructure.
Which is easier to learn, Astro or Hugo?
Astro is easier to pick up (4/5 vs 3/5). Ships zero JS to the client by default (Islands Architecture). Hugo Go template syntax has a steep learning curve.
Which performs better, Astro or Hugo?
Both score equally on performance (5/5). The real difference depends on your setup: Astro uses JavaScript/TypeScript (framework-agnostic), Hugo uses Go (Go templates). Proper caching and CDN configuration matters more than the platform itself at this tier.

Related Comparisons

Explore more comparisons featuring Astro or Hugo

Astro vs Hugo Guides

In-depth guides and tutorials to help with your migration

Ready to Migrate?

Move your content between Astro, Hugo, and 60+ other platforms with our free migration tool.

Start Free Migration