Based on 2 and 1488 real audits
| Metric | Acuity Scheduling | core-js | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 53 | 36 | Acuity Scheduling |
| Accessibility | 94 | 88 | Acuity Scheduling |
| Best Practices | 79 | 83 | core-js |
| SEO | 92 | 91 | Acuity Scheduling |
| Security | 69 | 64 | Acuity Scheduling |
| TTFB | 550ms | 359ms | core-js |
| Composite | 74 | 72 | Acuity Scheduling |
Acuity Scheduling outperforms core-js in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 72). core-js leads in best practices, TTFB.
Choose Acuity Scheduling when your primary concern is performance and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose core-js when your primary concern is server response time and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 2 audited Acuity Scheduling sites and 1488 audited core-js 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