Grav vs Jekyll
| Tagline | Fast, simple, and flexible flat-file CMS with no database required | Transform plain text into static websites and blogs |
| Category | Blogging & CMS | Blogging & CMS |
| Replaces | WordPress.com, Squarespace, Medium | WordPress.com, Medium, Squarespace |
| GitHub stars | 16k | 52k |
| Language | PHP | Ruby |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Manual Docker | Manual Docker |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 3 days ago | 7 days ago |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Grav
- No built-in multi-user editorial workflow or fine-grained permissions
- E-commerce and membership features require third-party plugins
- Flat-file storage can become slow with thousands of pages
Jekyll
- Ruby environment setup can be tricky on Windows
- No admin UI; all content management is via files
- Slower build times for very large sites compared to Hugo or Eleventy
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Jekyll for the larger community and ecosystem. Grav has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.