Bridgetown vs Harp
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted blogging platforms options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Bridgetown
Progressive Ruby site generator and web framework
VS
Harp
Static web server with built-in preprocessing
| Feature | Bridgetown | Harp |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Blogging Platforms | Blogging Platforms |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Ruby | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | source, binary | source, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,358 | ★ 4,995 |
| First released | 2020 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Jekyll, WordPress | Jekyll |
Why pick each one
Choose Bridgetown if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Active community (1.4k GitHub stars)
- Written in Ruby
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Choose Harp if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (5k GitHub stars)
- Written in JavaScript
Frequently asked questions
Is Bridgetown or Harp better?
Harp is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Bridgetown if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Bridgetown and Harp free and open-source?
Yes. Bridgetown is licensed under MIT and Harp under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Bridgetown and Harp with Docker?
Bridgetown: check the project docs for container support. Harp: check the project docs for container support.