When comparing Hugo vs Webflow, the Slant community recommends Hugo for most people. In the question“What is the fastest CMS for web content (news website with some static pages) ?” Hugo is ranked 1st while Webflow is ranked 4th. The most important reason people chose Hugo is:
Code can be viewed [on GitHub](http://github.com/spf13/hugo).
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Open-source and free
Code can be viewed on GitHub.
Pro Single Binary - Cross Platform
Pro No dependencies
All other SSGs expect you to have a full toolchain setup for their language. Hugo is written in Go and distributed as an executable for unix, linux, windows and mac. Just download and run.
Pro Clean workflow
Create your new site, run the Hugo server, edit. Lather, rinse, repeat. Hugo stays out of the way.
Pro Good documentation
Pro Many themes available
Pro Draft mode
Allows you to see changes in real time.
Pro Very active community
Pro Easy to add new content types, data files, and taxonomies
Pro Collaborative development support
Webflow allows workload to be shared among multiple users.
Pro W3C-compliant HTML5/CSS3
Webflow generates W3C-compliant markup and stylesheets.
Pro Responsive web design with Bootstrap
Because it's based on Bootstrap, it works across all modern browsers & devices.
Con No tutorial on how to create a theme from scratch
Con Can't export your site for deployment unless you pay.
Not unreasonable, but something users should know before investing their time.
Con Design tool is web-based, not a proper application.
The site doesn't state this explicitly.
Con Fixed media queries
Webflow has four fixed breakpoints (desktop, laptop, mobile landscape & mobile portrait). The inability to set your own media queries can be limiting. If your layout breaks outside of these four options, you have to export the code and write them yourself.