Jekyll vs Kirby
| Tagline | Transform plain text into static websites and blogs | File-based CMS with no database required |
| Category | Blogging & CMS | Blogging & CMS |
| Replaces | WordPress.com, Medium, Squarespace | Squarespace, WordPress.com, Contentful |
| GitHub stars | 52k | 1.5k |
| Language | Ruby | PHP |
| License | MIT | ⊘ Proprietary |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Manual Docker | Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 1 month ago | 6 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.
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
Kirby
- Commercial per-site license required; cost adds up for agencies managing many sites
- File-based storage does not scale well for high-traffic sites with many content editors writing simultaneously
- No built-in e-commerce, memberships, or newsletter functionality
- Plugin ecosystem is smaller than WordPress; fewer pre-built integrations available
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Jekyll for the larger community and ecosystem. Kirby has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.