Jekyll is the only static site generator GitHub Pages builds natively — push Markdown, Pages runs Jekyll for you. Every other generator, including Hugo, Eleventy, Astro, and a Next.js export, needs a GitHub Actions workflow to build and publish.
“GitHub static site generator” usually means one of two questions: which generator does GitHub support, or which generator should I use for a site hosted on GitHub. The honest answer to the first is Jekyll, natively, and almost anything else with one extra step. This is a comparison of the realistic options and the point at which GitHub Pages itself becomes the wrong host.
Table of contents
- Jekyll: the native, zero-config option
- Hugo, Eleventy, Astro, Next export: all need GitHub Actions
- How to choose between them
- GitHub Pages’ real limits
- When to move to a static host with previews and custom headers
- A quick decision table
- How this fits the rest of the stack
- FAQ
Jekyll: the native, zero-config option
Jekyll is a Ruby-based static site generator that GitHub Pages runs for you automatically. Push a repository containing Markdown files, a _config.yml, and Jekyll’s expected folder structure, and Pages builds it server-side — no GitHub Actions workflow required, no build step to configure.
This native integration is the entire reason Jekyll still shows up at the top of “static site generator” searches years after competitors overtook it on developer mindshare. It is genuinely the path of least resistance for a blog or documentation site if you do not already have a strong preference for another tool.
For the full setup walkthrough, see Free Jekyll Hosting.
Hugo, Eleventy, Astro, Next export: all need GitHub Actions
Every other generator can absolutely be hosted on GitHub Pages, but Pages does not know how to run Hugo, build an Eleventy site, or export a Next.js app. You need a GitHub Actions workflow that installs the tool, runs its build command, and publishes the output folder to Pages.
# .github/workflows/deploy.yml (Hugo example)
name: Deploy Hugo site
on:
push:
branches: [main]
jobs:
build:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v4
with:
submodules: recursive
- uses: peaceiris/actions-hugo@v3
with:
hugo-version: 'latest'
- run: hugo --minify
- uses: actions/upload-pages-artifact@v3
with:
path: ./public
deploy:
needs: build
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
permissions:
pages: write
id-token: write
steps:
- uses: actions/deploy-pages@v4The shape is identical for other generators: checkout, install the tool, build, upload the output as a Pages artifact, deploy. See Hugo GitHub Pages Tutorial for the Hugo-specific version end to end.
How to choose between them
The decision usually comes down to three questions, not raw build speed, since every generator here builds a reasonably sized site in seconds.
- Do you already know Ruby (Jekyll), Go templates (Hugo), plain JS/Nunjucks (Eleventy), or a component framework (Astro, Next)? Pick the one that matches, not the one with the best benchmark
- Do you want zero-config GitHub integration, or are you comfortable maintaining a small Actions workflow? Jekyll wins the first case outright
- Do you need a component model, islands architecture, or a specific data-fetching pattern? Astro and Next export handle that; Jekyll and Hugo are template-first
For a new project with no existing constraint, Astro is a reasonable default in 2026 — fast builds, a component model when you need one, plain HTML output when you do not, and it works fine through the same Actions pattern above.
Team size matters more than people give it credit for. A solo blog with occasional posts barely notices the difference between generators. A team of five writers touching the same docs site every week feels Jekyll’s slower Ruby build times and Hugo’s stricter templating conventions very differently — Hugo rewards consistency and punishes ad-hoc page structures, which is exactly what a larger team needs, while a solo project can get away with a looser Jekyll setup that would become unmaintainable with more hands in it.
GitHub Pages’ real limits
Pages is free and reliable, but it has limits that matter once a site grows past a personal blog or a small docs site.
- Published sites are limited to 1GB
- GitHub recommends staying under roughly 100GB of bandwidth per month — a soft limit that can trigger a rate-limit response on heavy traffic rather than a hard cutoff
- No server-side code — Pages serves static files only, so anything needing a backend, a database, or server-rendered personalization is out of scope
- Builds run in GitHub’s shared Actions runners for non-Jekyll sites, with the usual Actions minute limits on private repositories
None of this is a criticism of Pages — it was never built to be a general-purpose host, and it is excellent at the job it was built for.
One limit worth calling out specifically because it trips people up: Pages has no concept of environment-specific configuration. There is one deployed site per repository (or per branch, if you configure it that way), so previewing a change before it goes live means either a separate branch pointed at a separate Pages site, or testing locally with the generator’s own dev server and trusting the build. Neither is a real preview-per-pull-request workflow.
When to move to a static host with previews and custom headers
The signal to move off Pages is usually one of these, not a hard traffic number: you want a preview URL for every pull request before merging, you need to set a custom response header like a Content-Security-Policy, you need redirects or rewrites beyond a basic _redirects-style file, or the 1GB site size or bandwidth ceiling is a real constraint rather than a theoretical one.
A static host built around the same GitHub-push workflow, but with a real build pipeline, gets you those without changing the generator or the repository. On RunxBuild, a static site connects to the same GitHub repository, builds from the same command, and adds custom domains, response headers, redirects, rewrites, and SPA fallback on top — with 120GB of bandwidth included before usage-based billing starts. See Custom Domains on RunxBuild and Static Sites on RunxBuild.
A quick decision table
- Want zero build configuration and are fine writing Markdown -> Jekyll on GitHub Pages
- Want the fastest possible builds on a content-heavy site -> Hugo, via Actions
- Want a component model with islands and mixed frameworks -> Astro, via Actions
- Already have a Next.js app and want a fully static export -> Next export, via Actions
- Outgrowing Pages’ limits or want PR previews and custom headers -> a connected static host instead of Pages
How this fits the rest of the stack
There is no wrong static site generator here — Jekyll, Hugo, Eleventy, and Astro all produce the same thing in the end: a folder of files a browser can render without a server doing any work. What actually differs is how much configuration you accept before the first deploy, and how far the host can grow with you afterward. When Pages’ limits start to bite, the RunxBuild hosting calculator shows what a static site with real bandwidth and a custom domain costs before you commit.
Whichever generator wins, the repository can also be connected as a static site on the RunxBuild dashboard, with the build command and output directory set once.
Useful related references:
FAQ
Is Jekyll the only static site generator GitHub supports?
It is the only one GitHub Pages builds natively without a workflow. Every other generator — Hugo, Eleventy, Astro, Next.js static export, and more — works fine on GitHub Pages, but needs a GitHub Actions workflow to run the build step first.
Can I use Hugo or Astro with GitHub Pages?
Yes. Add a GitHub Actions workflow that installs the tool, runs its build command, and uploads the output folder as a Pages artifact. The workflow runs on every push, so the deployment feels automatic once it is set up.
What is GitHub Pages’ bandwidth limit?
GitHub asks Pages sites to stay under roughly 100GB of bandwidth per month as a soft guideline, alongside a 1GB limit on total published site size. It is not a hard, precisely enforced cap, but heavy sustained traffic can trigger rate limiting.
Why did my GitHub Pages site stop deploying?
Common causes: a broken Jekyll config or missing front matter on a Markdown file, a failing GitHub Actions build step for a non-Jekyll generator, or exceeding the 1GB site size limit. Check the Actions tab or the Pages build status in repository settings for the specific error.
Can I run a database or backend code on GitHub Pages?
No. GitHub Pages serves static files only — HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and other assets with no server-side execution. Anything needing a database, authentication, or server logic needs a different host, even if the front end is still built as a static site.