Why we build websites with Hugo
The case for static site generators and why speed matters more than features.
Part of the series: Under the Hood
Part 2 / 3
Table of Contents
Nobody expects to hear “Hugo” when they ask what we build websites with. WordPress, sure. Wix, maybe. But a static site generator? That usually needs some explaining.
Hugo in 30 seconds
Hugo takes your content, your templates, and your assets, and spits out a folder of plain HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. No database, no server-side runtime, no PHP. Just files. You drop them on a CDN and you’re done.
Compare that to WordPress, which rebuilds every page from scratch on every visit, hitting the database, running PHP, assembling the HTML. Hugo does all that work once, at build time.
Why static sites win
They’re genuinely fast
This isn’t marketing speak. When there’s nothing between the user and a pre-built HTML file except a CDN, pages load almost instantly.
| Metric | WordPress (typical) | Hugo |
|---|---|---|
| Time to First Byte | 200-800ms | 20-50ms |
| Full Page Load | 3-8 seconds | 0.5-1.5 seconds |
| Lighthouse Score | 40-70 | 95-100 |
The difference is noticeable on every device, but especially on mobile with spotty connections.
The security story is simple: there’s nothing to hack
Most website breaches exploit one of these:
- Database connections
- Plugin vulnerabilities
- Admin panel logins
- Server-side code execution
A static site has none of that. There’s no database to inject SQL into, no admin panel to brute-force, no plugins running server-side code. The attack surface is basically zero.
Hosting costs next to nothing
Static files can go on any of these for free:
- Cloudflare Pages: Free
- GitHub Pages: Free
- Netlify: Free tier available
- Vercel: Free tier available
No servers to babysit. No PHP upgrades. No database backups at 3am.
Everything lives in Git
Your whole website is a Git repository. Every change is tracked, every version is recoverable, and deployments happen automatically when you push. If a content update breaks something, you roll back with one command.
Where Hugo doesn’t fit
I’m not going to pretend static sites solve everything. If your project needs any of these, you’ll want a different tool:
- User accounts and authentication
- Real-time content (chat, live dashboards)
- Complex e-commerce with inventory tracking
- Heavy user-generated content
For those, something like Next.js or a full-stack framework makes more sense.
“But the client needs to edit content”
This comes up a lot. The answer is a headless CMS that feeds content into Hugo at build time:
- Decap CMS: Git-based, runs in the browser, no server needed
- Sanity: Great for real-time collaboration between editors
- Contentful: Solid choice for larger teams
The client gets a familiar editing interface with a nice UI. The site still deploys as static files with all the speed and security benefits.
What this actually looks like
Our Hugo sites consistently hit 100 on Lighthouse performance, cost nothing to host on Cloudflare Pages, and have had zero security incidents. There’s simply nothing to exploit.
The typical workflow is straightforward:
1. Client provides content and requirements
2. We build with Hugo, client gets a live preview URL
3. Feedback rounds on the staging site
4. Approved changes deploy automatically
5. Site goes live on CDN worldwide
Start to launch is usually 1-2 weeks for a business website.
Worth a look
If you’re curious about Hugo, the official documentation is excellent, and the theme gallery gives a good sense of what’s possible.
If you want to talk about whether Hugo is the right fit for your project, get in touch . You can also take our quiz for a quick recommendation or check out our portfolio to see what we’ve built.