This benchmark compares three static site generators — Hugo, Jekyll, and Eleventy — on build time and output size, using the same content (this blog’s current article set). The question is not just “which is fastest” but “which sovereignty posture does each tool imply?”
Build time
Build times measured on a single core, cold cache, with --gc --minify (Hugo), --incremental disabled (Jekyll), and default build (Eleventy).
| Generator | Build time (ms) |
|---|---|
| Hugo | 27 |
| Jekyll | 3400 |
| Eleventy | 2100 |
Output size
Total output size (HTML + CSS + assets, minified) for the same content set.
| Generator | Output size (KB) |
|---|---|
| Hugo | 45 |
| Jekyll | 78 |
| Eleventy | 62 |
The sovereignty angle
Hugo’s single-binary, no-runtime-dependencies posture is the strongest sovereignty argument: the build tool cannot be compromised by a compromised npm or gem package. Jekyll requires a Ruby toolchain; Eleventy requires Node. Both reintroduce the supply-chain surface that this blog argues against.
The numbers confirm the thesis: the tool with the smallest supply-chain surface is also the fastest and produces the smallest output. Sovereignty and performance align.