Traditional CMS vs Static Site Generator

Developers should learn Traditional CMS when building content-heavy websites for clients or organizations that need non-technical staff to manage updates easily, as it reduces development time and maintenance costs meets developers should use a static site generator when building fast, secure, and scalable websites with predictable content, as it eliminates server-side rendering overhead and reduces vulnerabilities compared to dynamic sites. Here's our take.

Traditional CMS

Nice Pick

Developers should learn Traditional CMS when building content-heavy websites for clients or organizations that need non-technical staff to manage updates easily, as it reduces development time and maintenance costs

Pros

• It's ideal for projects with standard requirements like blogs, news portals, or small business sites where customization is limited but usability is key
• Related to: wordpress, drupal

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Static Site Generator

Developers should use a Static Site Generator when building fast, secure, and scalable websites with predictable content, as it eliminates server-side rendering overhead and reduces vulnerabilities compared to dynamic sites

Pros

• It's ideal for projects like blogs, documentation, or landing pages where performance and simplicity are priorities, and it integrates well with modern workflows using version control and headless CMSs
• Related to: jamstack, markdown

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Traditional CMS is a platform while Static Site Generator is a tool. We picked Traditional CMS based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Traditional CMS wins

Based on overall popularity. Traditional CMS is more widely used, but Static Site Generator excels in its own space.