| Metric | ADFOX | HSTS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 38 | 49 | HSTS |
| Accessibility | 71 | 89 | HSTS |
| Best Practices | 86 | 88 | HSTS |
| SEO | 89 | 91 | HSTS |
| Security | 63 | 70 | HSTS |
| TTFB | 380ms | 364ms | HSTS |
| Composite | 70 | 75 | HSTS |
HSTS outperforms ADFOX in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 70). ADFOX leads in no categories.
ADFOX doesn't clearly lead HSTS in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose HSTS when your primary concern is accessibility and server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 26 audited ADFOX sites and 2556 audited HSTS 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 →
Send Feedback