Astro vs Eleventy: which should you choose?
Both ship zero JavaScript by default, but they aim at different developers. Astro gives you a modern component model with optional islands and rich tooling; Eleventy (11ty) is the simplest, most unopinionated static pipeline there is. Here's the honest split — and why the generator you pick doesn't have to dictate how you build and ship it.
Pick by how much structure you want:
- Component model + optional interactivity → Astro — islands, MDX, content collections, any UI framework.
- Simplest possible static site, max control → Eleventy — zero JS, minimal deps, any template language, no framework to learn.
- Purely content, no component syntax → Eleventy — Nunjucks/Liquid/Markdown and includes are enough.
- Build & deploy either, on any host → Buddy — own the build, choose the host.
The honest split
Where each one wins
Choose Astro when…
- You want a real component model and optional interactivity via islands — not just static templates.
- You plan to use React, Vue, Svelte or Solid components, or plain
.astrocomponents, on the same site. - You want MDX and type-safe content collections plus richer, batteries-included tooling.
- Modern developer experience matters — you'd rather grow into features than wire everything by hand.
Choose Eleventy when…
- You want the simplest possible static pipeline with zero client JavaScript and nothing extra shipped.
- You value minimal dependencies and an unopinionated setup — maximum control over every detail.
- You'd rather use a template language you already know (Nunjucks, Liquid, Handlebars, Markdown, JS) than learn component syntax.
- The site is purely content and static, and you want the gentlest learning curve with no framework lock-in.
Side by side
Astro vs Eleventy, compared
Both are free and open-source (MIT) and both ship zero JS by default. The difference is philosophy: a modern component framework with optional islands vs a minimal, template-agnostic static generator.
| Dimension | Astro | Eleventy |
|---|---|---|
| UI / language | Any (React/Vue/Svelte/.astro) | JS + any template lang |
| Primary use case | Content sites w/ components | Pure static content |
| Rendering | SSG · SSR · Server Islands | SSG |
| Client JS by default | Zero | Zero |
| Component / islands model | Yes (islands, any UI) | No (includes/shortcodes) |
| Build speed | Slower (Node) | Fast, lightweight |
| Learning curve | Gentle | Gentlest |
| Dependencies | Fuller toolchain | Minimal |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Best for | Content sites needing interactivity | Simple static sites, max control |
Compiled July 2026 from each project's official docs.
Where Buddy fits
Own the build, choose the host
Buddy is one way to do this — GitHub Actions, GitLab CI and Bitbucket Pipelines can build these frameworks too. The point is that your build and host stay a choice you own, independent of the framework.
The Astro-vs-Eleventy decision is about the generator. How you build and where you deploy is a separate choice — and one you shouldn't have to redo if you change your mind. Buddy builds either one and ships it anywhere.
Builds both
A Node.js build step compiles either an Astro or an Eleventy project — same pipeline model, no lock-in to one generator.
Deploy anywhere
Ship to Cloudflare, Netlify, Vercel, your own CDN/VPS, or Buddy's Dev Cloud (MicroVM + static hosting).
Preview env per PR
Every branch or pull request gets a real URL so changes get reviewed on a live deploy before merge.
Free to start
Free tier at €0/mo, then Pro €29/mo and Hyper €99/mo as concurrency and team size grow.
Common questions
Astro vs Eleventy — common questions
Should I use Astro or Eleventy?
Use Astro when you want a real component model, optional interactivity via islands, and richer tooling — MDX, type-safe content collections, and the option to drop in React, Vue or Svelte components. Use Eleventy when you want the simplest possible static pipeline: zero client JavaScript, minimal dependencies, your choice of template language (Nunjucks, Liquid, Handlebars, Markdown or plain JS), and maximum control with nothing to learn beyond templates. Both are MIT-licensed and both ship zero JS by default; the split is modern component DX versus unopinionated minimalism.
Does Eleventy ship any JavaScript?
No — Eleventy ships zero client-side JavaScript by default, exactly like Astro. It renders your templates to static HTML at build time and adds nothing to the page. Any interactivity is opt-in: you write plain JavaScript by hand and include it yourself. Eleventy has no reactive component runtime and no hydration model, so what you ship is only the JS you deliberately add.
Can Eleventy use components like Astro's islands?
Not in the same way. Eleventy has no reactive islands and no React/Vue/Svelte hydration. You reuse markup through includes, partials, shortcodes and layouts, and any interactive behaviour is hand-written vanilla JavaScript. Astro, by contrast, lets you mark a component as an island and hydrate it with a UI framework while keeping the rest of the page as zero-JS HTML. If you need framework-driven interactive widgets, Astro's model is the better fit; if your site is purely content, Eleventy's includes are enough.
How hard is it to migrate between Astro and Eleventy?
Content ports easily — Markdown and MDX move over with little change, and both use file-based routing. The real work is redoing the templates and components: Eleventy's Nunjucks/Liquid layouts and shortcodes have to be re-expressed as Astro components (or vice versa), and any interactive islands in Astro become hand-written JS in Eleventy. A purely content site moves in days; the effort scales with how much component logic and interactivity you have.