head to head · open source

Ghost vs docfx

Ghost has 55,339 GitHub stars, 11,975 forks, 182 open issues and last shipped yesterday. docfx has 4,448 stars, 889 forks, 452 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Ghost leads on adoption by 1,144% (55,339 vs 4,448 stars). Ghost is written in TypeScript under MIT; docfx is written in C# under MIT. Ghost has attracted 22% as many forks as stars, docfx 20%. 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 docfx ★ 4.4K category Content & Publishing

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Ghost docfx
GitHub stars ★ 55K ★ 4.4K
License MIT MIT
Written in TypeScript C#
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 12K ⑂ 889
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 docfx if

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

full docfx 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 docfx

docfx is a static site generator for .NET API documentation, and it lives in the .NET ecosystem. The project is written in C , licensed under MIT, and published at dotnet.github.io/docfx. It is now a .NET Foundation project maintained by the community after Microsoft Learn stopped using it and ended support in November 2022. It builds technical documentation sites from landing pages, Markdown, .NET API reference docs, and REST API content.

read the full docfx 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 lektor

Frequently asked questions

Is Ghost or docfx more popular?

Ghost has 55,339 GitHub stars and docfx has 4,448. Ghost has the larger community by that measure.

Are Ghost and docfx free?

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

What is the difference between Ghost and docfx?

Ghost is written in TypeScript and docfx in C#. 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 docfx?

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