Static site generators versus WordPress

Categorized under:

, ,
Photo of author
Written By Sonya Mann

20 thoughts on “Static site generators versus WordPress”

  1. WordPress’ downside is speed. Of 9 plugins I install, 4 are to boost speed (wp smush, wp super cache, WP Performance Score Booster, Speed Booster Pack) in order to achieve 0.9-1.5 second loading speed according to gtmetrix. Without the plugins, my website pageloads range 9-15 seconds.

    WordPress should natively satisfy gtmetrix requirement (Yslow score >90%, pagespeed score > 90%, pageload < 1 sec, request <5).

    • I recall testing the default themes and they do pretty well on pagespeed and gtmetrix.
      To your point, you’re in trouble once you start adding plugins and using any of the million suboptimized themes. Only a handful of themes actually share upfront their pagespeed score (which can still very much be mostly thanks to a very well configured server… anyways)

      If you’re building sites that aren’t changing too often, I’d recommend ditching your performance plugins and using one of the caching plugins that serves static HTML files instead of optimized dynamic ones.

    • GT Metrix is mostly just measuring frontend setup, not actual load time, which is where WordPress fails when loaded dynamically. But when comparing to WordPress to a static site generator, it’s only worth comparing to an extremely heavily cached site, in which case all performance benefits of the static site generator are gone.

      So basically, static site generators offer no benefit in speed unless your WordPress site is borked, or has more features than the static site.

  2. A point of clarification: static site generators and flat-file CMSes aren’t quite the same thing.

    Static site generators take a collection of templates, stylesheets, Markdown, etc., process those, and spit out a bunch of HTML files. You can host these almost anywhere, even places that heavily restrict the types of files they serve, like GitHub Pages, Amazon S3, and so on.

    Flat-file CMSes, on the other hand, simply use files and folders to house data instead of a database. Their template files are still processed and converted to HTML dynamically on demand. Grav, for example, uses PHP templates just like WordPress.

    Also, saying “GitHub’s Jekyll” is sort of like saying “Automattic’s WordPress”. 😛 Jekyll was created by Tom Preston-Werner, who was indeed the co-founder of GitHub, but I don’t think Jekyll was ever an internal-only project.

    • I’ve seen the terms used interchangeably for the most part, so thank you for clarifying that there’s a difference! I’ll ask Brian to add a note to that effect.

    • Thanks for the clarification; but that raises two questions.

      1. Static site generators or Flat-file CMSes which one is better?
      2. Static site generators or Flat-file CMSes which one is easier and most recommended to be used by an individual who is not programming savvy?

      Thanks in advance for your answer.

      • 1. Static Site Generator generates pages in your machine in HTML form while Flat-file CMSes use PHP or another language to generate user required page at server side and its never beats pure HTML templates. According to me, Static Site Generator are best.
        2. Flat-file CMS is more user-friendly in terms of administration.

      • Almost none. But people often lock down their wp-admin and cache the blazing heck out of their frontend, which gives them many of the advantages that people look for in a static site generator.

        Some folk also use CDN’s on their frontend, which can block things like POST requests, solving most of the security side of things, and the performance side, in comparison to static site generators.

      • No idea how many WP sites owners use this intentionally but the fact is a LOT of caching / site optimization / site acceleration plugins essentially do one thing : export static HTML files and control the caching expiration.

        CDNs would do something somewhat similar too, eventhough they can be an overkill for most sites.

  3. Thanks for writing this. Having built more than sixty WordPress sites, and half as many static sites, I have my own preferences and biases. However, I think the “this vs that” idea overstates what’s happening.

    Each of these technologies have their place and should be used for the right use-case. It just so happens that WordPress is very often overkill for what a lot of sites need, and now that there is a robust ecosystem around static sites, they’re being used more often. I don’t think that’s a threat. In fact, the WordPress ecosystem would arguably be better off if it were more focused. I think the mistake many make with WordPress is using it for everything, no matter if it’s the right tool for the job (and I have made that mistake!).

    At any rate, static and WordPress should, in my view, be considered as complimentary: use a static site generator unless the use-case requires something like WordPress. As a starter, static sites still mostly require more developer skill than WordPress, and anyone reliant on plugins or themes will be much happier using WordPress.

    Flat-file CMS’s, which are not static site generators at all, and are more like WordPress than static sites, also have their use-cases – more like WordPress-lite.

  4. Any idea on the SEO advantages/disadvantages of a static site generator?

    I had a client who hired me to do some SEO work for her ECWID hosted site, which is, as I understand it, a static site generator system. Google’s bots cannot scan the pages as they do a WordPress or similar type of site, and so can’t catalog them for use in the SERP’s. Since the pages are created on the fly, there is no page to scan.

    I don’t know if that is typical or not.

    Her is site fast, but SEO opportunities are severely limited.

    • There are no SEO advantages or disadvantages to using a static site generator. They’re just web pages. The crawler can’t tell and does not care what is being used to power it.

      • Ryan, thanks for the reply.
        That is my whole point and perhaps I did not phrase the question correctly.

        On this system, and maybe it’s peculiar to this system, there is no page to crawl. It only exists when a user clicks on it. This system was described in their help forums as static site generated and Webmaster Tools cannot be used on it. It has nothing to crawl.

        If that is the case universally for a site using statically generated pages, I would think that would be bad for any site’s SEO. If you are big, popular and well branded, this will probably not be a big issue. If you are small and constantly working to build and fill the sales funnel, this is an issue.

        This also may not be the case for such sites universally. I could understand this not being an issue on a flat file site, but if pages are created only on the fly, as they are on ECWID and never cataloged for the SERP’s that could a serious impediment to this system’s adoption, despite its speed advantage.

  5. The team behind the Amimoto-AMI is working on a static generator for WordPress sites. From what I’ve seen, it should be an amazing option for people who would benefit most from static content but need the power of the WP.

  6. Indeed, static (e.g. Jekyll) and dynamic (wordpress) sites have their place.
    I have seen far too many sites built on wordpress that were nothing more than an index/informational page and a contact page. WordPress was definitely overkill and a simple static (does it change often? No? Go static) would have been more than sufficient.

    I think that is where web designers/developers need to focus when determining what their client needs are.

Comments are closed.

A2 Hosting
WordPress.com