A static website, built from HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with no server-side code, is the cheapest kind of site to host, and three major platforms will host it free: Cloudflare Pages, Netlify, and GitHub Pages. All three connect to a Git repository, build your site on push, and serve it over a global network with HTTPS included. The differences are in build limits, bandwidth, extra features, and how each platform handles growth beyond the free tier.

Cloudflare Pages is the strongest choice for most small static sites, because its free tier is generous on bandwidth and builds, and it sits on Cloudflare's large global network, which keeps load times fast worldwide. It integrates naturally with Cloudflare's other free services, such as DNS and Workers for small dynamic features, and its deployment model is simple: push to Git, and the site updates. The main limitation is that advanced features and higher build volumes move to paid plans, but a typical small site rarely approaches those limits.

Netlify is the most beginner-friendly of the three, with a polished dashboard, deploy previews for every pull request, and built-in form handling and serverless functions on the free tier. Deploy previews are genuinely useful for teams and for anyone who wants to review changes before they go live, and the form feature lets a static site collect contact submissions without a backend. The free tier's bandwidth and build-minute limits are lower than Cloudflare's, so a site with heavy traffic or frequent builds may outgrow it sooner.

GitHub Pages is the simplest option and the natural choice if your code already lives on GitHub. It serves static sites directly from a repository, with no separate deployment configuration, and it is free for public repositories with a modest bandwidth allowance. The trade-offs are fewer features: no deploy previews, no built-in forms, and build options limited to Jekyll or a pre-built static output. For a personal site, documentation, or portfolio, those limits rarely matter, and the simplicity is a real advantage.

Choosing between them starts from your site's needs. If you want the most generous free tier and the fastest global delivery, Cloudflare Pages leads. If you want the best developer experience, deploy previews, and built-in forms, Netlify leads. If your site is a simple personal or documentation site already on GitHub and you value zero configuration, GitHub Pages leads. All three support custom domains with free HTTPS, so your domain choice is not locked to any of them.

Migration between these platforms is easy, which removes most of the risk from the choice. Since the site is just static files built from a Git repository, moving from one host to another usually means connecting the repository to the new platform, updating DNS, and waiting for propagation. That portability means you can start with the simplest option today and move later if traffic or features demand it, without rebuilding anything.

To start, pick one platform, connect your repository, deploy your site, and attach your custom domain. Measure load times and build behavior for a week, and only reconsider if you hit a limit or miss a feature. For most small static sites, any of the three will serve you well for years at zero cost, and the time you save on hosting can go into the content that actually brings visitors.

One more consideration when choosing a static host is how each platform handles forms, redirects, and headers, since these small features often decide whether a simple site stays simple. Redirect rules let you preserve old URLs when you restructure a site, custom headers let you set caching and security policies, and form handling lets a contact page work without a backend. Cloudflare Pages and Netlify both offer these through configuration files, while GitHub Pages requires workarounds or third-party services for forms. If your site needs any of these, check the platform's documentation for that specific feature before committing, because a missing redirect or form capability discovered after launch is an avoidable frustration. For most personal and documentation sites, any of the three handles the basics well, and the choice comes down to which extra features you actually need.