Static-site simplicity where it's the right fit
Jekyll site builds for teams that want speed, security, and simplicity over a full database-backed CMS.
What is Jekyll?
Jekyll is a static site generator - it takes content written in Markdown, runs it through a templating layer, and outputs plain HTML files with no database and no server-side processing required at request time. There's no admin panel logging into a live server, no database layer that can be exploited, and nothing running that needs patching against a constant stream of vulnerabilities. The tradeoff is that content changes require a rebuild and redeploy rather than a live edit.
Jekyll is a static site generator that converts Markdown content into pre-built HTML files, removing the database and server-side layer that a traditional CMS depends on.
Why this matters for the business
Most sites don't need what a database-backed CMS provides - real-time editing by multiple non-technical users, dynamic per-request content, complex user permissions. For a site that's mostly informational or updated infrequently by people comfortable with a Git-based workflow, all of that machinery is overhead that adds attack surface and hosting cost without adding value.
A static site removes an entire category of security risk because there's no database to inject into and no server-side script to exploit at request time, and it's typically faster because there's no server-side rendering happening on each visit - the page was already built.
What makes this hard to get right
- Non-technical editors generally cannot update content directly without a Git-based workflow or a headless CMS layered on top
- Every content change requires a rebuild and redeploy, which adds a small delay compared to a live database edit
- Highly dynamic, personalised, or frequently transactional content does not fit the static model well
How we approach Jekyll
Site Architecture
- Content and template structure planned before the first build
- Collections and data files organised for how content actually grows
- Clean URL structure independent of the underlying file layout
Markdown Content Workflows
- Content authored in Markdown with front matter for metadata
- Git-based version history for every content change
- Editor documentation for teams new to a file-based workflow
Build & Deployment Pipeline
- Automated builds triggered on content commit
- Staging environment to review before production deploy
- Rollback via version control if something breaks
Performance Tuning
- Asset optimisation at build time
- CDN configuration for static asset delivery
- Build time optimisation as content volume grows
CMS Layer (Optional)
- A lightweight headless CMS or Git-based editor layered on top for non-technical editors
- Preview workflows so changes can be reviewed before merge
Scope, area by area
| Area | What we deliver |
|---|---|
| Site Architecture | Jekyll site structure, collections, and templates built for the actual content |
| Deployment Pipeline | Automated build and deploy process with a staging step |
| Editor Workflow | Documentation, and a CMS layer if needed, for non-technical content updates |
How it actually runs
Content & Structure Planning
We map the content types and volume before choosing how collections and templates should be organised.
Build & Template Setup
The Jekyll site is built with clean, maintainable templates rather than a generic starter theme left mostly unmodified.
Deployment Pipeline
We set up automated builds and deploys, with a staging environment so nothing goes to production unreviewed.
Editor Enablement
If non-technical editors need to update content, we document the workflow clearly or layer on a lightweight CMS.
Performance & Handover
Assets are optimised at build time and the team is handed a working, documented pipeline rather than a black box.
How this compares
| Jekyll (Static) | Traditional Database-Backed CMS |
|---|---|
| No database to secure or exploit | Database is a constant attack surface |
| Pages served pre-built, typically faster | Pages rendered server-side on each request |
| Content changes require a rebuild and deploy | Content changes are live immediately |
| Best for content updated by technical or Git-comfortable teams | Better suited to frequent edits by non-technical teams |
Neither is universally better - the deciding factor is how often content changes and who needs to change it.
What we measure this against
- Build time as content volume grows
- Page load speed against a database-backed equivalent
- Deployment frequency and rollback reliability
Who needs this
Documentation sites and content that changes infrequently
Static generation fits cleanly when updates happen in batches rather than continuously.
Security-conscious teams
Removing the database and server-side execution layer removes an entire category of attack vector.
Teams already comfortable with Git
A Git-based content workflow is a natural fit for teams already working that way for code.
Where this applies
- A company blog or documentation site with infrequent, batch-style updates
- A marketing site that needs to be fast and cheap to host at scale
- A technical team that wants version-controlled content alongside version-controlled code
The teams who regret choosing Jekyll almost never regret the technology itself - they regret not having a plan for who updates content and how. A static site with no editor workflow just means every content change becomes a developer request, which is fine for some teams and a bottleneck for others.
Other services in this area
The world's most common CMS, built to actually hold up
WordPress development built around plugin discipline and page speed, not just theme customisation.
Content management, decoupled from presentation
Headless CMS implementations for teams that need content flexibility across web, app, and other channels.
When off-the-shelf doesn't fit the content model
Custom CMS builds for content structures that don't map cleanly onto WordPress, Shopify, or any off-the-shelf platform.
Moving platforms without losing rankings or data
CMS migrations planned around SEO preservation, content integrity, and minimal downtime.
Common questions
Not directly through Git in most cases, no. We either train the team on a simplified Git-based workflow, or layer a lightweight headless CMS or Git-based editor on top so non-technical editors get something closer to a familiar interface.
It removes an entire category of risk - there's no database to inject into and no server-side script executing on each request - but it doesn't make a site invulnerable. Build pipeline security and hosting configuration still matter.
Yes, and we can go the other direction too if a static site later needs dynamic features it can't support. Content usually migrates cleanly; the bigger question is whether your team's editing workflow will fit the static model.
Meaningfully faster in most cases, because pages are pre-built rather than assembled on each request. The exact gap depends on what the comparison CMS setup looks like and how well it's been optimised.
No - if your content needs grow to require real-time multi-user editing, e-commerce transactions, or highly personalised content, a static site stops being the right fit and a migration becomes the honest recommendation, not something we'd stretch the original build past its limits to avoid.
Not natively - static sites can integrate third-party services like payment processors, forms, and search via client-side JavaScript and APIs, but complex transactional functionality generally points toward a database-backed platform instead.
Not sure if a static site fits your content needs?
We'll look at how your content actually changes before recommending Jekyll over a full CMS.
Talk to us →