This morning, I published a comprehensive migration guide "From WordPress to Hugo: A Complete Migration Guide for 2025". After helping dozens of people migrate their sites, I kept hearing the same question: "But is Hugo really that much faster?"
So I decided to find out. What started as a simple speed test turned into something that completely changed how I think about static vs dynamic sites.
The Setup That Actually Matters
Here's what I tested: identical content on two different platforms, same VPS (4 vCPU, 8GB RAM, NVMe SSD), measured with Firefox's Load Time extension in private browsing mode. No cached results, no cheating.
Site 1: WordPress with OpenLiteSpeed, LS Cache, and Quic.cloud CDN
Site 2: Hugo static site generator
The WordPress setup wasn't your typical shared hosting disaster. This was a properly optimized machine running one of the best caching solutions available.
The First Surprise: Content-Heavy Pages
Testing a blog post with multiple images gave me results I wasn't expecting:
WordPress: 732ms
Hugo: 700ms
Wait, what? Only 32 milliseconds difference? Where's the massive speed advantage everyone talks about?
But here's where it gets interesting. The Load Time extension breaks down exactly where each site spends its time:
WordPress spent 252ms executing JavaScript after parsing the HTML. Even with perfect caching, all those theme scripts and plugins still need to run in your browser.
Hugo spent 552ms just parsing the HTML document. No JavaScript execution, but the static file was so dense that the browser needed over half a second just to read and understand it.
Same total time, completely different bottlenecks.
The Homepage Reality Check
Testing lighter homepage content revealed the real performance gap:
WordPress: 329ms
Hugo: 220ms
Now we're talking. Hugo's 109ms advantage comes from having virtually no JavaScript to execute (0ms vs 228ms for WordPress). The HTML is lighter, the parsing is faster, everything just works.
Where the 32ms Difference Becomes a Business Problem
For a single visitor hitting one page, 32 milliseconds is nothing. But scale this to real traffic, and the math gets scary fast.
At around 10,000 concurrent requests, you start seeing the cracks. WordPress, even with LS Cache, still has 5-10% of requests that miss the cache. New pages, expired cache entries, weird URL parameters - stuff happens.
With Hugo, every single request is identical: read file, send file. Done.
Push it to 100,000 requests, and those cache misses add up. We're talking 5,000 to 10,000 dynamic PHP requests hitting your database while Hugo just keeps serving files like nothing happened.
The infrastructure requirements diverge completely at this point. WordPress needs more CPU, more RAM, more monitoring. Hugo? Hugo doesn't even notice.
The Optimization Paradox I Discovered
Here's what blew my mind: my WordPress setup with LS Cache essentially turns WordPress into a static site generator. For cached pages, the server bypasses PHP entirely and serves pre-built HTML files.
It's brilliant. WordPress generates the page once, then serves it statically to everyone else. The best of both worlds, right?
Almost. The "almost" is that 5-10% of requests that slip through. Plus the complexity. Plus the moving parts that can break. Plus the constant updates and maintenance.
When WordPress works perfectly, it rivals Hugo. But "perfectly" is harder to maintain than you'd think.
The Global Performance Twist
Here's something that surprised me: with Quic.cloud CDN, WordPress might actually beat Hugo for international audiences. Hugo serves from my single server location, while WordPress gets distributed globally.
Adding Cloudflare to Hugo would level the playing field, but it won't fix the core bottleneck I discovered - that massive HTML parsing time for content-heavy pages.
What This Actually Means for You
The internet loves simple answers: "Static is faster!" But reality is messier.
Hugo wins when:
- You want simple, predictable performance
- Your content doesn't change constantly
- You're comfortable with markdown and command-line deployment
- You're serving a geographically concentrated audience
WordPress wins when:
- You need an editing interface for non-technical users
- Your site requires dynamic features
- You have global traffic and can invest in proper optimization
- You're willing to manage the complexity for flexibility
The Real Lesson
The WordPress vs Hugo debate isn't really about speed anymore. A properly optimized WordPress site can match static site performance for most use cases.
The real choice is between:
- Simplicity vs Flexibility: Hugo is simpler, WordPress is more capable
- Predictability vs Power: Hugo's performance is linear and predictable, WordPress can be optimized to incredible heights but requires expertise
- Maintenance vs Features: Hugo needs almost no maintenance, WordPress offers endless possibilities
The Bottom Line
After all this testing, I'm not telling everyone to migrate to Hugo anymore. If you're happy with WordPress and willing to invest in proper optimization, you can achieve similar results.
But if you're tired of plugin conflicts, security updates, and performance troubleshooting, Hugo offers something WordPress can't: simplicity that scales.
The future probably belongs to hybrid approaches anyway. Static generation for content that rarely changes, dynamic features where needed. Both platforms are moving toward this middle ground.
The speed difference? It matters less than choosing the right tool for your specific situation. Both can be fast. The question is which fits your workflow, your team, and your long-term goals.
This analysis comes from real-world testing on production-grade infrastructure. Your results may vary based on your specific setup, content types, and traffic patterns.
Top comments (6)
I started with the second part of the series. But I wanted to add my comment here because i think it fits better with the content of the post.
I can understand why Hugo can be a good alternative as a developer. From a user experience perspective going from having a browser interface that guides the people to writing markdown files and needing to learn git is a huge step back.
If you are looking for a static site solution with a browser admin, I recommend Statamic. It is a PHP solution, but that doesn't matter that much as it are static pages that are served.
Interesting… but here’s the thing: Statamic is a commercial product, and that already puts it outside the scope of what I’m comparing here. When people look for a static setup, they usually want simplicity, transparency, and full control — not a paid layer glued on top to re-introduce a CMS feeling.
For beginners who don’t want to touch Git, sure, it can be a convenient halfway house. But calling it an alternative in the same category as WordPress or Hugo is a stretch. It’s more of a proprietary detour than a real answer to the problems discussed in the post.
I didn't get from the post open-source was that high on list of requirements.
I metioned Statamic because it combines the admin from Wordpress and the speed of Hugo by using it as a static site generator. And this is possible with the free version.
The main concern in the comment was the switch from a guided interface to needing to know how to use git, learning about markdown and frontmatter.
Even as a developer I rather use a browser admin, because it is much nicer to work with content.
You’re right—open source wasn’t listed as a requirement in the article; it’s just a general principle I follow when exploring solutions.
A browser-based admin is definitely convenient, and it’s great that it’s included in the free version.
Still, a free tier of a commercial product isn’t truly open source—offerings can change, the tool could disappear, and any investment could be lost.
Another way to look at it is, because you are paying they have an extra stream of income.
Open source projects depend on consultancy, hosting, events and donations to keep them alive.
i think the decision depends on the situation. You can drink water for free if there are drinkable water points, but if you want to drink a good glass of wine you go to a bar.
This discussion is off-topic and personal. I’m here to focus on open-source solutions. End of story.