Based on 1 and 546 real audits
| Metric | Acconsento.click | Apache | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 56 | 51 | Acconsento.click |
| Accessibility | 93 | 86 | Acconsento.click |
| Best Practices | 100 | 88 | Acconsento.click |
| SEO | 92 | 90 | Acconsento.click |
| Security | 77 | 67 | Acconsento.click |
| TTFB | 1684ms | 649ms | Apache |
| Composite | 81 | 74 | Acconsento.click |
Acconsento.click outperforms Apache in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (81 vs 74). Apache leads in TTFB.
Choose Acconsento.click when your primary concern is best practices and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Apache when your primary concern is server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 1 audited Acconsento.click sites and 546 audited Apache sites in the BeaverCheck database. Every audit runs the same 100+ checks — Lighthouse performance, security headers, accessibility, SEO, server response time — against a real URL. No vendor input, no sponsorship, no affiliate links. Read the full methodology →
Small sample: one or both technologies have fewer than 10 audited sites. Treat these numbers as directional — medians stabilize around 20–30 audits per side.
Send Feedback