---
title: "Static Site Generators Compared: Hugo and Jekyll Hit 90% Good LCP, Next.js 29% - PageSpeed Matters"
description: "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."
lang: en
json-ld:
---

[Static Site Generators Compared: Hugo and Jekyll Hit 90% Good LCP, Next.js 29%](https://www.pagespeedmatters.com/resources/data-studies/static-site-generators-core-web-vitals)

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](https://www.pagespeedmatters.com/resources/data-studies/static-site-generators-core-web-vitals)