Aggregate AI readiness comparison across 2632 production sites. This compares all sites built on each framework, not the framework websites themselves.
Hugo Astro
Across 2632 crawled sites, Hugo outperforms Astro in aggregate AI visibility—winning 5 of 8 metrics in this architectural benchmark. Token efficiency strongly favors Hugo (39.0×) over Astro (47.8×)—a 18% difference that directly impacts AI processing costs. On schema coverage, Astro averages 0.9 structured data types per site vs 0.3 for Hugo—3.0× more out-of-the-box schema markup. Server-side rendering favors Hugo with a ghost ratio of 0% compared to 5% for Astro. Note: These are aggregate statistics across 1416 Hugo and 1216 Astro production deployments. Your specific implementation may differ—run a free scan to check.
| Metric | Hugo (n=1416) | Astro (n=1216) | Δ% | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACRI Score | 45.4WIN | 43.6 | 4% | Hugo |
| AI Readiness | 70.2WIN | 69.0 | 2% | Hugo |
| Token Bloat | 39.0×WIN | 47.8× | 18% | Hugo |
| Ghost Ratio | 0%WIN | 5% | 100% | Hugo |
| Schema Coverage | 0.3 | 0.9WIN | 67% | Astro |
| Schema Adoption | 11% | 30%WIN | 62% | Astro |
| GPTBot Access | 96%WIN | 93% | 3% | Hugo |
| Structure Score | 6.4 | 6.6WIN | 3% | Astro |
These are aggregate stats across thousands of sites. Your specific Hugo or Astro implementation may outperform or underperform the average.