RepoPilot

gatsbyjs/gatsby vs getzola/zola

gatsbyjs/gatsby shows stronger signals overall

As of September 2026, gatsby shows healthier maintenance signals than zola. gatsby rates Healthy overall while zola rates Mixed. gatsby was committed to 5 days ago with 12+ active contributors, while zola was committed to 4 days ago with 8+ active contributors. gatsby is MIT-licensed while zola is EUPL-1.2-licensed. gatsby has no known critical CVEs, while zola has 1.

Informational only. RepoPilot summarises public signals at the time of analysis. Not professional, security, or legal advice.

gatsbyjs/gatsby

Healthy

Healthy across all four use cases

HealthyDependency

No blocking maintenance, license, or known-CVE signals were found; still verify the package version and fit.

HealthyFork & modify

No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.

HealthyLearn from

Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.

HealthyDeploy as-is

No blocking repository-level signals were found; deployment review is still required.

  • Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 73% of recent commits
  • Scorecard: marked unmaintained (2/10)
  • Last commit 1d ago
  • 12 active contributors
  • MIT licensed
  • CI configured
  • Tests present

Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard

getzola/zola

Mixed

Single-maintainer risk — review before adopting

ConcernsDependency

non-standard license (EUPL-1.2); 1 high-severity CVE in dependencies…

HealthyFork & modify

No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.

HealthyLearn from

Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.

MixedDeploy as-is

1 high-severity CVE in dependencies; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10

  • Single-maintainer risk — top contributor 91% of recent commits
  • Non-standard license (EUPL-1.2) — review terms
  • Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
  • 1 high-severity advisory in transitive deps
  • Last commit today
  • 8 active contributors
  • EUPL-1.2 licensed
  • CI configured
  • Tests present

What would improve this?

  • Use as dependency Concerns to Mixed if: clarify license terms
  • Deploy as-is Mixed to Healthy if: resolve the high-severity advisory

Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard

Signal-by-signal breakdown

gatsbyzola
Stars55,94017,429
Last commit5d ago4d ago
LicenseMITEUPL-1.2
Open issues453192
Has tests
Has CI
Test coverage28%59%
Dependency CVEsNo CVEs0 critical · 1 high · 3 moderate · 0 low
Architecture grade
Cycles
Bottom-lineHealthy signalsMixed signals

Want the full analysis? gatsbyjs/gatsby · getzola/zola

Ask AI about gatsbyjs/gatsby vs getzola/zola

Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.