Based on 179 and 3 real audits
| Metric | Adobe Experience Manager | IBM Carbon Design System | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 34 | 34 | Tie |
| Accessibility | 90 | 87 | Adobe Experience Manager |
| Best Practices | 84 | 84 | Tie |
| SEO | 89 | 80 | Adobe Experience Manager |
| Security | 67 | 65 | Adobe Experience Manager |
| TTFB | 352ms | 141ms | IBM Carbon Design System |
| Composite | 73 | 72 | Adobe Experience Manager |
Adobe Experience Manager outperforms IBM Carbon Design System in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). IBM Carbon Design System leads in TTFB.
Choose Adobe Experience Manager when your primary concern is SEO and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose IBM Carbon Design System 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 179 audited Adobe Experience Manager sites and 3 audited IBM Carbon Design System 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