Static Site Generators Compared: Hugo and Jekyll Hit 90% Good LCP, Next.js 29%

    True static generators like Hugo and Jekyll have the best loading scores on the web (good LCP near 90%), but the JavaScript tools that share the "static" label (Next.js, Nuxt, Gatsby) pass Core Web Vitals far less often.

    Good loading (LCP) by "static" tool (mobile)
    Jekyll (true static)
    90.2%
    Hugo (true static)
    89.9%
    Astro (islands)
    76.7%
    Gatsby (React SSG)
    68.4%
    Next.js (JS meta-framework)
    54.8%
    Nuxt.js (JS meta-framework)
    48.4%

    Source: PageSpeed Matters analysis of static-tool origins with CrUX field data, mobile, May 2026.

    The table is a gradient of JavaScript weight: the more a tool ships, the later the main content paints.

    Core Web Vitals pass rate by "static" tool (mobile)
    Hugo
    50.4%
    Astro
    48%
    Jekyll
    47.4%
    Gatsby
    40.7%
    Next.js
    29.3%
    Nuxt.js
    24.9%

    Source: PageSpeed Matters analysis, mobile 75th-percentile field data, May 2026.

    True static tools clear the roughly 42% web average; the JavaScript-heavy ones fall well below it.

    Source: Static Site Generators Compared: Hugo and Jekyll Hit 90% Good LCP, Next.js 29% - PageSpeed Matters