head to head · open source

Ghost vs bridgetown

Ghost has 55,339 GitHub stars, 11,975 forks, 182 open issues and last shipped yesterday. bridgetown has 1,365 stars, 132 forks, 44 open issues and last shipped 14 days ago. Ghost leads on adoption by 3,954% (55,339 vs 1,365 stars). Ghost is written in TypeScript under MIT; bridgetown is written in Ruby under MIT. Ghost has attracted 22% as many forks as stars, bridgetown 10%. Ghost was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

Ghost ★ 55K bridgetown ★ 1.4K category Content & Publishing

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Ghost bridgetown
GitHub stars ★ 55K ★ 1.4K
License MIT MIT
Written in TypeScript Ruby
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-04
Forks ⑂ 12K ⑂ 132
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick Ghost if

  • You weight community size — 55K stars and counting
  • You want the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches TypeScript
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full Ghost profile →

pick bridgetown if

  • You want the bridgetown feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches Ruby
  • You evaluated both and bridgetown fits your workflow better

full bridgetown profile →

About Ghost

Ghost is an open source publishing platform built in Node.js and TypeScript, designed for blogs, newsletters, and membership based content sites. It runs as a self hosted web application and also powers Ghost(Pro), a managed service where all revenue supports the Ghost Foundation. The project lives in the JavaScript/Node.js ecosystem and is licensed under MIT.

read the full Ghost overview →

About bridgetown

Bridgetown is a Ruby powered progressive site generator and fullstack framework for building blogs, documentation sites, and personal websites. It lives in the Ruby and Jamstack ecosystem, combining static site generation with optional dynamic web application functionality through Roda.

read the full bridgetown overview →

More in Content & Publishing

next.js ★ 142K storybook ★ 91K hugo ★ 90K Understand-Anything ★ 83K Strapi ★ 73K nuxt ★ 61K

Related comparisons

next-js vs ghost next-js vs nuxt next-js vs gatsby next-js vs jekyll next-js vs hexo next-js vs nextra next-js vs kit next-js vs vike storybook vs understand-anything storybook vs devdocs storybook vs docsify understand-anything vs devdocs storybook vs wiki storybook vs mkdocs-material understand-anything vs docsify understand-anything vs wiki hugo vs strapi hugo vs payload hugo vs halo hugo vs filament strapi vs payload strapi vs halo hugo vs wagtail hugo vs decap-cms

More Blogging & Personal Sites projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Blogging & Personal Sites field.

Ghost vs next.js Ghost vs nuxt Ghost vs gatsby Ghost vs jekyll Ghost vs hexo Ghost vs nextra Ghost vs kit Ghost vs vike Ghost vs actions-gh-pages Ghost vs react-snap Ghost vs hugo-theme-academic-cv Ghost vs docfx

Frequently asked questions

Is Ghost or bridgetown more popular?

Ghost has 55,339 GitHub stars and bridgetown has 1,365. Ghost has the larger community by that measure.

Are Ghost and bridgetown free?

Both are open source. Ghost is licensed under MIT and bridgetown under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between Ghost and bridgetown?

Ghost is written in TypeScript and bridgetown in Ruby. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, Ghost or bridgetown?

Choose Ghost if you want the larger community (55,339 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose bridgetown if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.