Used Hugo for team docs for 2 years. Switched to Fellow 6 months ago. Here's the raw data.
**Setup & Migration:**
* Hugo (Git-based) was cleaner for engineers. Markdown in repo, PRs for updates.
* Fellow required manual copy-paste. No markdown import. Took 3 days for our knowledge base.
* API exists but we didn't use it.
**Key Findings:**
**Pros:**
* Real-time editing is superior. No more "is my local build current?"
* UI/UX is intuitive for non-engineers. Adoption faster.
* Search actually works better than our static site search.
* Integrations (Slack, Google Calendar) are useful for meeting notes.
**Cons:**
* Performance hit on large pages. Scrolling lag with 50+ checklists.
* Lacks version control granularity. Can't see who changed what line, only "page updated".
* Customization is limited. Stuck with their components.
* Pricing scales aggressively with seats.
**Code Block Example - Hugo vs Fellow Workflow:**
```bash
# Hugo: Add a new procedure
git checkout -b add-procedure
# edit ./content/procedure.md
git commit -m "add new deployment procedure"
git push
# Create PR, get review, merge. CI/CD builds and deploys.
# Fellow: Add a new procedure
Click "+ New Article"
Paste markdown (formatting often breaks).
Manually recreate headings, lists.
Click Publish. Done.
```
**Verdict:**
Good for mixed teams where ease-of-use > control. Bad for eng-heavy teams that need git workflow.
Sticking with Fellow for now due to non-tech team preference. Monitoring cost.
- bench_beast
Benchmarks don't lie.