Jekyll vs Astro: Which Static Site Generator Should You Use in 2026?
An honest comparison of Jekyll and Astro — performance, themes, learning curve, content handling, and which one is right for your next site.
Astro launched in 2021 and quickly became one of the most talked-about static site generators. Jekyll has been around since 2008 and remains one of the most widely used. In 2026 both are mature, actively maintained, and capable of building fast, beautiful sites. So how do you choose?
What each tool is
Jekyll is a Ruby-based static site generator built around Markdown content and Liquid templating. It has no JavaScript framework dependency, outputs plain HTML, and integrates natively with GitHub Pages. It is the go-to tool for simple, content-focused sites.
Astro is a JavaScript-based web framework that pioneered the “islands architecture” — by default it ships zero JavaScript to the browser, but it lets you embed interactive components from React, Vue, Svelte, Solid, or any other framework in isolated islands. It handles both static generation and server-side rendering.
Performance: the key difference
Both Jekyll and Astro ship minimal JavaScript by default. But their approach differs fundamentally.
Jekyll outputs plain HTML with zero JS unless you add it yourself. There is no framework overhead at all.
Astro introduces the concept of component islands — interactive components that hydrate on the client. A static Astro page also ships zero JavaScript, but the moment you add an interactive component, Astro ships only that component’s JS, not a full framework bundle. This is more efficient than React or Vue, but still more than Jekyll’s zero.
For pure content sites (blogs, docs, portfolios): Jekyll and Astro perform equally well — both score 99–100 on Lighthouse with no effort.
For sites with some interactivity (search, tabs, carousels): Astro has an architectural advantage — it handles interactive components more cleanly than adding jQuery or vanilla JS to Jekyll.
Learning curve
Jekyll requires: YAML front matter, Markdown, and Liquid templating. No programming knowledge required. A non-developer can be productive in an afternoon.
Astro requires: Markdown or MDX, the .astro component syntax (similar to JSX), and JavaScript/TypeScript. If you want to use component frameworks, you need to know React, Vue, or Svelte. The barrier is meaningfully higher.
For non-developers or those new to web development: Jekyll wins.
For JavaScript developers: Astro’s component model will feel natural.
Content handling
Both tools handle Markdown content well. Astro adds MDX support out of the box — Markdown with embedded JavaScript components. This is powerful for interactive documentation or content with embedded demos.
Jekyll’s Liquid templating is simpler but less expressive. You cannot embed dynamic components mid-content without reaching for JavaScript.
For a pure blog or documentation site, Markdown is enough. MDX becomes valuable when your content itself needs to be interactive — embedding a live code editor in a tutorial, for example.
Themes and ecosystem
Jekyll has a larger, more established theme ecosystem. Hundreds of free themes exist on GitHub and dedicated marketplaces like JekyllHub. Themes are plain HTML, CSS, and Liquid — easy to understand and modify without a build step.
Astro themes exist and are growing rapidly — the official Astro themes directory has hundreds of options. But many require framework knowledge (React or Vue) to customise meaningfully.
Winner for theme selection and ease of customisation: Jekyll.
Build times
| Site size | Jekyll | Astro |
|---|---|---|
| 50 pages | ~3 seconds | ~5 seconds |
| 500 pages | ~15 seconds | ~20 seconds |
| 5,000 pages | ~2–3 minutes | ~3–5 minutes |
Both are fast. Jekyll has a slight edge on large sites because it does not bundle JavaScript, but the difference is rarely meaningful in practice.
Hosting
Both deploy to Netlify, Cloudflare Pages, and Vercel with zero configuration. Jekyll deploys natively to GitHub Pages. Astro requires a build step even for GitHub Pages (via GitHub Actions), but this is well-documented and straightforward.
When to choose Jekyll
- You want simplicity above all else
- You are not a JavaScript developer
- You want native GitHub Pages hosting with no build configuration
- Your content is Markdown and your layouts are HTML — no framework components needed
- You want themes you can read and modify without understanding a component system
When to choose Astro
- You are a JavaScript developer comfortable with components
- You want to mix static content with interactive UI components
- You want MDX — Markdown with embedded components
- You need server-side rendering alongside static pages (Astro handles both)
- You are migrating from a framework-heavy setup and want to reduce JavaScript
The bottom line
For a blog, portfolio, documentation site, or small business website with no interactive components: Jekyll is the simpler, faster path to production. It has more themes, easier hosting, and a lower learning curve.
For a site that needs some interactive components embedded in content — a tutorial platform, a documentation site with live examples, a landing page with tabs and demos — Astro is the better architectural choice.
In 2026, Astro is arguably the more exciting tool. But exciting does not always mean right for your project. If your site is primarily words, Jekyll is still the most efficient path from blank page to live site.
Browse free and premium Jekyll themes on JekyllHub to see what is possible.