Based on 4 and 284 real audits
| Metric | Advanced Custom Fields | Yoast SEO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 33 | 45 | Yoast SEO |
| Accessibility | 84 | 88 | Yoast SEO |
| Best Practices | 78 | 87 | Yoast SEO |
| SEO | 82 | 90 | Yoast SEO |
| Security | 64 | 66 | Yoast SEO |
| TTFB | 615ms | 388ms | Yoast SEO |
| Composite | 73 | 75 | Yoast SEO |
Yoast SEO outperforms Advanced Custom Fields in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Advanced Custom Fields leads in no categories.
Advanced Custom Fields doesn't clearly lead Yoast SEO in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose Yoast SEO when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 4 audited Advanced Custom Fields sites and 284 audited Yoast SEO 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