Comparing Grav, Hugo and Mkdocs for Documents or Blogs

[Donna_Kx]

As so many focus on WordPress, we figured to share some other options that can be good choices for blogging if you want a less heavy option than WordPress and want to self-host. Since these tend not to use a database, they can also be less of a security concern and easier to backup and maintain. 

Grav, Hugo, and MkDocs are all popular choices for building static websites, including blogs. While they share similarities, they also have distinct characteristics that cater to different user preferences and project requirements. We use MkDocs with the Material theme for our knowledge base that’s in development.

Grav

• Type: Flat-file CMS  (does not require a database, uses file system to store content)
  
• Strengths:
  
  • Flexible and customizable
    
  • User-friendly admin panel  
    
  • Strong theming capabilities  
    
  • Handles complex content structures well
    
  • Super simple install - unzip, visit the site in the browser, set up the admin user and password,  and that’s it
    
  
  
• Weaknesses:
  
  • Can be resource-intensive compared to Hugo and MkDocs
    
  • Requires PHP environment  
    
  
  
• Best for:
  
  • Bloggers seeking a balance between flexibility and ease of use
    
  • Those who need to manage complex content structures
    
  
  

Hugo

• Type: Static site generator  (a tool that creates a static HTML website using raw data and templates)
  
• Strengths:
  
  • Extremely fast performance  
    
  • Large and active community  
    
  • Extensive theming options
    
  • Strong SEO support  
    
  
  
• Weaknesses:
  
  • Steeper learning curve compared to Grav and MkDocs
    
  • Less flexible for complex content structures
    
  
  
• Best for:
  
  • Performance-oriented bloggers
    
  • Developers who prefer a command-line interface
    
  
  

MkDocs

• Type: Documentation-focused static site generator
  
• Strengths:
  
  • Simple and easy to use
    
  • Excellent for technical documentation
    
  • Strong integration with Markdown  
    
  • Clean and minimalist design
    
  
  
• Weaknesses:
  
  • Primarily focused on documentation, might lack features for blogging (unless using a theme that has blogging features such as Material)
    
  • Fewer theming options compared to Grav and Hugo
    
  
  
• Best for:
  
  • Technical bloggers or those creating documentation-heavy sites
    
  
  
• Note:
  • The Material theme has some awesome features that make blogging with this platform easier to do. It still takes more tech know-how, or a desire to learn some tech.
    

Comparison Table

Feature               Grav               Hugo               MkDocs

Ease of use       Medium          Low                 High

Performance     Medium          High                High

Flexibility          High               Medium           Low

Theming            High               High                 Medium

Community        Medium         High                 Medium

Choosing the Right Tool

• Grav: Ideal for bloggers who value flexibility, ease of use, and a rich feature set. Does have an optional admin panel.
  
• Hugo: Perfect for performance-conscious bloggers and developers who prefer a command-line interface.
  
• MkDocs: Best suited for technical bloggers or those creating documentation-heavy sites.
  

Ultimately, the best choice depends on your specific needs, technical expertise, and project requirements. Consider factors such as desired level of customization, performance expectations, and the complexity of your content when making a decision. If you need an admin panel, Grav does have one and you could always have one made for either of the others. Hugo has some third party admin panels if needed. But, as far as I’m concerned, it’s fun working with MkDocs and manually making the various pages.

[Tiffany_Kx]

Wordpress has such a presence online that I really hadn't considered that there were other options beyond Wordpress.  I do like the fact that each option you discussed does not have a database, or offers a static site generator.  Each option also has their stand out differences that would strongly steer a webmaster in one direction or another based on needs.  Each is not so much similar, which makes each choice unique to the webmasters project.  Because of their differences, it also makes a strong argument that each platform has benefits and features that can be weighed based on the webmasters experience in finding the right fit for their project.