shouldiuse.io

VERDICT

Should I use Hugo?

The world's fastest framework for building websites - gohugo.io

Depends. Use Hugo if you have a developer comfortable with the command line and want a free, blazing-fast static site. Skip it if you need visual editing, managed hosting, or someone to call when things break.

Confidence

Medium. Based on ~30 public sources; most snippets were truncated, and no verbatim user quotes were extractable.

Ratings

  • Value for money
  • Ease of use
  • Feature depth
  • Support quality
  • Security posture

Pricing

$0

Hugo (open source)

ModelNot disclosed
Monthly feesNot disclosed
HardwareNot disclosed
Free tierYes

Best for

  • Developer-run blogs and docs sites
  • Large content sites needing fast builds
  • Teams wanting free static hosting
  • CI/CD-savvy engineering orgs

Not for

  • Non-technical marketers needing WYSIWYG editing
  • Small teams wanting a hosted, zero-setup site
  • Anyone requiring vendor support or SLAs
  • Dynamic apps needing a backend or database

Gotchas - check before you buy

high

CVE-2026-75926 (CVSS 8.6) hit versions 0.162.0–0.164.x — update promptly.

medium

No paid support; you depend on community forums and GitHub issues.

medium

You own hosting, CI/CD, and upgrades — no vendor handles any of it.

low

Non-developers bounce off; comparisons steer them to Sitejet or Google Sites.

Pros and cons

Pros

  • Completely free and open source — no licensing costs
  • Builds are exceptionally fast, even for large sites
  • Huge ecosystem: 89.3k GitHub stars, many themes
  • Static output pairs simply with Azure, Firebase, Amplify hosting
  • Simple binary install; standard and extended editions

Cons

  • No visual editor — content lives in Markdown and templates
  • DIY builds and deploys, e.g. GitHub Actions pipelines
  • HIGH severity CVE (CVSS 8.6) affected v0.162.0–0.164.x
  • Support is community forum only; no vendor behind it
  • Guess: Extended edition needed for SCSS/asset features

Sources & method

Analyzed 9/24/2026 - 10 sources - Active project with fast patching; one HIGH (CVSS 8.6) CVE and one moderate advisory found — no breaches reported.

official x2review x4security x3news x1
  • CVE-2026-75926, Rated HIGH (CVSS 8.6), affecting Hugo 0.162.0 to 0.164.x per vulnerability trackers.
  • TailwindCSS permission bypass, Report of a TailwindCSS-related permission bypass fixed in Hugo.
  • Fedora 44 moderate advisory, Moderate information disclosure advisory for the Fedora 44 Hugo package.

Key stats

  • Value for money: 5/5

    Rating

  • $0

    Starting price

  • 10

    Sources

  • Analyzed

  • Value for money: 5/5. Free and open source, no licensing ever
  • Ease of use: 2/5. Guess: Go templates and CLI intimidate non-developers
  • Feature depth: 4/5. Fast builds, flexible theming per comparisons
  • Support quality: 2/5. Community forum and GitHub only, no vendor SLA
  • Security posture: 3/5. One HIGH CVE recently patched, active release cadence
  • 89.3k GitHub stars gohugoio/hugo repo
  • $0 Price Open source, no paid tier
  • Yes Free tier Entirely free, forever
  • 8.6 CVSS Top CVE severity HIGH, affected v0.162.0–0.164.x

Pricing

Hugo (open source)

$0

  • Full static site generator
  • Standard and extended editions
  • Community support only

Security

Active project with fast patching; one HIGH (CVSS 8.6) CVE and one moderate advisory found — no breaches reported.

  • CVE-2026-75926Rated HIGH (CVSS 8.6), affecting Hugo 0.162.0 to 0.164.x per vulnerability trackers.⁷
  • TailwindCSS permission bypassReport of a TailwindCSS-related permission bypass fixed in Hugo.
  • Fedora 44 moderate advisoryModerate information disclosure advisory for the Fedora 44 Hugo package.⁹

What users say

Community discussion centers on Hugo's build speed and flexibility, with a consistent learning-curve caveat around templates and self-managed deploys.

Alternatives

Compare Hugo with each alternative.

  • Google Sites

    No-code builder for non-technical teams.

Companies that use it

  • PINE64
  • University of Cambridge Statistics Laboratory
Full analysis

Based on ~30 public sources; most snippets were truncated, and no verbatim user quotes were extractable.

Free, extremely fast static site generator — great for developers, wrong for anyone wanting drag-and-drop editing or support.

Methodology

Based on ~30 public sources; most snippets were truncated, and no verbatim user quotes were extractable.

Sources

  1. Hugo official sitegohugo.io
    official
  2. gohugoio/hugo on GitHubgithub.com
    official
  3. Comparing Static Site Generator Build Timescss-tricks.com
    review
  4. Is Hugo templates still popular for static website creation? — Redditreddit.com
    review
  5. Hugo: Use-Cases, Insights and Reviews — Cusperacuspera.com
    review
  6. Sitejet platform vs Hugo — Cusperacuspera.com
    review
  7. CVE-2026-75926 detailcve.imfht.com
    security
  8. CVE-2026-75926 HIGH (CVSS 8.6)echelongraph.io
    security
  9. Fedora 44 Hugo advisorylinuxsecurity.com
    security
  10. Hugo (software) — Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
    news

Rate this review

Anonymous. You can change your vote.

Loading votes…

Comments

One queue. No nested comments. Give a display name first. Limit: 200 words per comment and 7 comments per day. You can edit or delete yours.

Save a name to write a comment.

0 / 200 words

No comments yet.