Almost five years after our migration to Jekyll, it was time for another technological advancement. This time, we chose Zola – a static site generator written in Rust that convinced us with its performance and simplicity.

Why Switch from Jekyll to Zola?

Jekyll has served us faithfully over the years. The Ruby-based framework is proven, has a large community, and offers numerous plugins. However, over time, we noticed some limitations:

The Challenges with Jekyll

  1. Dependency Management: The Ruby environment with Bundler, Gems, and their dependencies required regular maintenance and updates. Version conflicts were not uncommon.

  2. Build Speed: For larger projects, the build process became increasingly slower. What initially took 2-3 seconds added up with frequent changes.

  3. Development Environment: Setting up a working Jekyll environment on different systems wasn't always straightforward, especially during updates.

  4. Live Reload Performance: Reloading during development took several seconds, which impacted the workflow.

Why Zola?

While searching for alternatives, we discovered Zola. What convinced us:

  1. Incredibly Fast: Zola is written in Rust and compiles to native code. Build times of under 30ms instead of 2-5 seconds speak for themselves.

  2. Everything Included: A single executable file, no dependencies, no complex installation. Download, make executable, done.

  3. Built-in Features: SASS compilation, syntax highlighting, minification – all included, no plugins needed.

  4. Tera Templates: Similar to Liquid, but with better performance and clear error output.

  5. Active Development: Regular updates, modern features, responsive community.

The Migration Process

The migration proceeded systematically in several phases:

  • Phase 1: Analysis and Planning First, we analyzed the existing Jekyll site:
    • Which templates are being used?
    • Which Liquid syntax features are in use?
    • Which plugins are needed?
    • How is the content structure organized?
  • Phase 2: Core Structure Migration
    1. Project Setup: Initialized and configured new Zola project
    2. Content Conversion: Converted frontmatter from YAML to TOML
    3. Template Migration: Converted Liquid templates to Tera
    4. SASS stylesheets could be transferred
  • Phase 3: Visual Verification The most critical part: 1:1 visual replication of the Jekyll site. Here we:
    • Used browser DevTools to compare HTML structure
    • Matched computed styles
    • Compared screenshots from both versions
    • Validated each page individually
  • Phase 4: Testing and Optimization
    • Tested build process
    • Validated all internal links
    • Checked RSS feed
    • Captured performance metrics

The Results

The migration was worth it. The improvements are measurable:

Performance Comparison

MetricJekyllZolaImprovement
Build Time2-5 seconds~30ms10-50x faster
Server Start3-5 seconds<100ms30-50x faster
Live Reload2-3 seconds<100ms20-30x faster
InstallationComplex1 BinaryDrastically simplified

Developer Experience

The workflow has significantly improved:

  • Instant Feedback: Changes are immediately visible
  • Clear Errors: Zola provides precise error messages
  • Simple Setup: No more Gem conflicts
  • Platform Independent: Same experience on macOS, Linux, and Windows

And furthermore, the certainty that we won't fall into the update trap when a new Ruby or Jekyll version is released has fueled the migration.

Conclusion

Switching from Jekyll to Zola was the right decision. This shows that it's worthwhile to regularly evaluate new technologies. Not every migration is necessary, but when the benefits outweigh the costs, you should take the step. The combination of performance, simplicity, and modern features makes Zola an excellent choice for static websites.

Have questions about the migration or are you considering a switch yourself? Feel free to contact us!

Challenges

Not everything was trivial:

  1. Conditional Rendering: Zola's strict conditionals completely remove empty elements; Jekyll renders them as empty tags. This required CSS adjustments.

  2. Date Localization: Zola's built-in date formatting doesn't always use system locales as expected. Solution: Custom template logic for month names.

  3. Markdown Differences: CommonMark (Zola) vs. Kramdown (Jekyll) have subtle differences in list indentation (4 vs. 2 spaces).

Who is Zola Right For?

Ideal for:

  • Developers who value performance
  • Projects requiring frequent builds
  • Teams preferring simple development environments
  • Anyone who doesn't need complex plugin ecosystems

Maybe Not Ideal For:

  • Projects with very specific Jekyll plugins without alternatives
  • Projects requiring dynamic features (no static site generator is ideal for this)

Resources