This article was originally written in Spanish. The English version was translated with Claude Opus 4.7 and reviewed by me personally.
With the rise of AI, and especially with Claude Code helping to write code, the way people build personal blogs and websites is shifting. One of those shifts is the migration from WordPress sites to static sites.
A well-known example is the creator of Yoast SEO, who moved his personal site from WordPress to Astro: Do you need a CMS? .
I have joined this trend myself, because I think it is a good approach for many websites. In fact, the site you are reading right now is a static site built with Hugo and assisted by Claude Code.
Before getting into concepts and reasons, I want to say that I find it positive to have more options depending on what a given website needs. I have often felt that the WordPress ecosystem was becoming unsustainable and, in some cases, too heavy for basic websites.
What is a static website and what is WordPress?
A static website is a set of files (HTML, CSS, JS) served as they are to the browser. There is no database, there is no server logic: what the file contains is what you see. It works well for showing information that does not change on every request.
A dynamic website, on the other hand, needs a server capable of executing code (PHP, for example) and usually a database. That adds complexity, but it also enables forms, comments, private areas, bookings, ecommerce, and similar features.
WordPress is a CMS (Content Management System) that helps you create and manage a dynamic site.
The key difference: in WordPress, each visit generates HTML on the fly by querying the database. In a static site that HTML is generated once, during the build, and then served as is.
Static site generators
A static site can be as simple as a hand-written HTML page, or much more complete. This is where static site generators come in: tools that take content written in Markdown along with some templates and produce the final site, ready to upload to a server.
Some of the most popular ones are:
And here is a link with a much broader list: static site generators .
Why did I decide to migrate from WordPress to Hugo?
In short: security, maintenance, and cost.
Static site generators are not new, they have been around for a long time, but it is with the arrival of Claude Code that they really stand out in terms of how easy they are to set up and configure. Before, they were not particularly hard, but they required some technical skill for the initial setup. For many people it was more convenient to install WordPress, use a visual block editor, and have a site ready in a few hours.
Today, with a good prompt, Claude prepares a fairly solid Hugo project to start from. Any tweaks you need can be requested directly in chat and applied on the spot.
That said, I do not want to make it sound like anyone can just do it. Having some understanding of the generator and the technology behind it helps you review what Claude suggests and decide whether it is correct or whether there is a better practice. It still requires technical knowledge.
Weak points of WordPress
As much as I like WordPress, and as much as it has given me over the years, it also has weak points.
1. Security issues and constant maintenance
Hacks and security problems are more and more frequent, mostly because of plugins and missed updates. Even keeping everything up to date, you can still get infected through some vulnerability.
Over the last 3 years I have had a couple of massive infections across several of my WordPress sites, and detecting, cleaning up, and dealing with everything that follows is tedious. It is not something I want to keep dealing with.
2. Spam in forms and comments
Another classic: once your WordPress has been online for a while, bots find the forms and the comment section. You end up needing reCAPTCHA, Akismet, or antispam plugins just to live with it.
3. Plugin dependency and subscriptions
I have always tried to keep the number of plugins to a minimum: it makes maintenance easier and improves performance. Even so, my essentials include:
- Elementor Pro (builder): around 200 € per year depending on the plan
- WPML (multilingual): between 99 and 199 € per year depending on the plan
- Yoast SEO (SEO): free (there is a paid version)
- WordFence (security): free, paid version on some projects
- Litespeed Cache (cache): free
That is the bare minimum of my stack, costing close to 400 € per year. It is not 400 € per website: these licenses are valid for several sites. On other projects the list grows quite a bit.
4. Performance
There are very fast WordPress sites out there, but in general they are more sensitive to caching setup and server performance.
5. CMS complexity
“Complexity” for a simple personal blog with a single user. For what I need, it is overkill.
6. Backup management
This is usually covered by the hosting you choose, but it is still something to keep in mind: you need solid backups in case something goes wrong.
7. Special configurations and control over static assets
Adding elements outside the WordPress standard is not as simple as it should be. Modifying header scripts, injecting HTML, or tweaking small details is not available out of the box.
You also do not have direct control over the static assets (JS, CSS) that get loaded: each plugin brings its own, and that can become heavy for many sites.
8. Matt Mullenweg
Co-founder of WordPress (together with Mike Little) and founder of Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com. He is a figure whose philosophy I do not share, and lately he has caused a fair amount of controversy inside the community. Whether you like it or not, that rejection spills over to WordPress itself.
Why do I like Hugo?
I find it simple and elegant. You can configure everything from your code editor by changing very little, it has a solid history on GitHub, and an active community.
I write in Markdown and with a couple of commands I deploy to the server. Simple.
The server can be something as basic as a Docker container on a cheap VPS. You do not need a “WordPress hosting” with extra features they are trying to sell you.
Let us revisit the previous points from Hugo’s perspective. Keep in mind that Hugo is not a CMS: it is a static site generator, nothing more.
1. Security
The attack surface is reduced to the minimum: there is no database to interact with, no built-in forms, and no server executing code.
2. Plugin dependency and subscriptions
Free and open source, no subscriptions or paid plugins required.
3. Performance
As lightweight as an HTML file. No database queries, no need for object caching or other complex setups to make it fast.
4. Complexity
Simple: you write your pages and posts, and that is exactly what gets rendered.
5. Backup management
As easy as copying the working directory. If you also use Git, you get version control for free and rolling back is trivial.
6. Special configurations and control over static assets
Full control over what is loaded on the site: header, footer, scripts, and code.
Are static sites for everyone? Is this the end of WordPress?
No. WordPress is not that bad, and Hugo or static sites are not that perfect. Each one has its pros and its cons.
Where does WordPress still shine?
On websites that need to be managed by non-technical users, ecommerces, booking systems, sites with login and a private area, and so on.
It is still the standard that many of us rely on to build and maintain websites.
That said, I think WordPress and its plugins need to step up and adapt to AI agents like Claude to allow changes more efficiently.
Negative points of a static site
A static site is just that: information to consult. Something as “simple” as a form is not available out of the box, although there are convenient alternatives using external services like Fillout Forms , Formspree, or Netlify Forms.
There is also no native comment system. If you want one, you need to integrate something external (Disqus, giscus, and similar), although, let us be honest, comments on personal blogs are barely used anymore.
Media handling (images, PDFs, videos) is not as convenient as in WordPress.
Editing and managing content can become tedious if it is a daily task or if the volume of pages is very large. It is not a CMS.
Any modification or upgrade you want to make has to be manual: there are no ready-made plugins to rely on.
Conclusion
WordPress is not the villain and Hugo is not a silver bullet. Each tool has its place, and the choice depends on what you need. For my personal blog, Hugo wins on simplicity, security, and cost. For an ecommerce site or a site with multi-user management, I would still go with WordPress without hesitation.
If anyone is interested in a guide on how to set up a functional blog or website with Hugo (SEO, best practices, and everything it involves), or has questions about the migration, feel free to email me directly at rafael.cosquiere@gmail.com . I will be happy to receive comments and feedback.